Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
from the can-we-settle-this-once-and-for-all? dept
Over the past few years, at least ten states (probably more, but we've lost track) have tried to pass laws banning the sales of violent video games to children. And every single one of them (yes, every last one) has been ruled unconstitutional, as a violation of the First Amendment. And yet, some states keep trying. In California, it's particularly ironic, given that the main supporter of the bill is The Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became famous starring in violent movies that are quite similar to the violent video games he now seeks to attack. As with every other state, the original law was found to be unconstitutional in both the district court, and again on appeal. Not surprisingly, The Governator has continued to waste taxpayer money on legal costs fighting for this bill (despite the state being massively cash-strapped), and now it appears that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.This could be a big deal. Since there's been near unanimous agreement among district and appeals courts that these sorts of laws are unconstitutional, the fact that the Supreme Court is taking the case, despite the lack of a circuit split, could mean that it feels that all these courts decided incorrectly. Hopefully, that's not the case, and the Supreme Court rules on this issue and finally closes the door on these questionable laws.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitutionality, supreme court, video games, violence
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Terminator
I understand why they are trying to do this but I just don't see it ever coming to fruition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Terminator
No more so than violent video games rated for adults are aimed at children. You seem to be implying that just because it's a video game, that it must be "aimed" at children. It's silly to have to say this at this point in history, but "Video games aren't just for kids any more." If a parent fails to realize that games are no longer all like Pac Man and Asteroids and that many are targeted to an adult audience, then that's their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
Ah, good point! Because without the movie rating system, how is a parent to know if Anal Cum Queens With Wangs #42 is suitable for their children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
And yet with the exception of child porn and snuff films, XXX movies are legal. So what's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
To be fair, the Cali law isn't trying to ban the games completely. They're only trying to ban selling the to minors. Still stupid, but it sounded like you were confused....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
by that logic, with the arrival of xxx movies the cinema wasnt for children anymore.
Notice a little difference here - it's only one word but it makes a world of difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
IANAL so I don't know all of the legal impications, but because both the MPAA and the ESRB ratings systems are voluntary, it looks to me that they already have the same sort of process.
oh yeah, the slam at arnold is typical of the masnick, knowing that the movies weren't made available to children, but still using it has a slam. not a very good example is it?
I think most people would see at least a bit of irony in someone who starred in violent movies campaining against violent video games regardless of the technical details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
Just want to point something out since it may not be clear to AC (AKA: TAM):
The enforcement of the MPAA rating is by theater only. A theater cannot get into trouble from the government because they let a 7 year old into a rated R movie. All theaters I've seen do this self enforcement because the corporate office (still a private group and not the government) will start firing people.
This is the same exact thing with video games. The ESRB rating is enforced by the store only. The government cannot and should not be able to fine or arrest anyone for selling a game to a minor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
Second, there is a voluntary rating system for games, just like for movies.
Third, the states asking for a government rating system for video games can't be asking for the same thing, because the government has nothing to do with the voluntary ratings system for movies.
Last, you do know that producers aren't required to submit their movies for a rating, right? Many movies are never, ever rated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Terminator
"Over the past few years, at least ten states (probably more, but we've lost track) have tried to pass laws banning the sales of violent video games to children."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Terminator
Neither are Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty or most of the other games being complained about today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Terminator
Yes it was - it was meant to kill John Connor - a child...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Terminator
My Terminator action figures from the early 90s says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Terminator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More...
And plunging hypodermic needles filled with steroids into his ass-cheeks. And harassing women. And saying that he admired Adolph Hitler. Seriously, my friends from California, do you realize how stupid you look with this guy running the show?
Here's the deal. When your state decides that you would rather have your state run by a drug abusing Nazi sexual-deviant, then you don't get to be a state anymore....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Individuals who want to poll their resources together outside a corporation may have problems doing this being that their contributions might be considered campaign contributions? I suppose they can simply open up a not for profit corporation and do the same thing?
These laws will only apply to free, GPL like or copyleft video games. Big corporations that copyright their video games or that make tons of money/monopoly rents will probably be held to a much lower standard.
This case would show how much the supreme court truly values free speech. Do they value free speech only when it's convenient to them or do they value it all around.
Then again, the republicans are pro gun rights (as am I) so violent video games might be acceptable to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Anonymous Coward
And that very system is completely voluntary. The MPAA rates movies at the request of movie studios not the government. The theatres don't allow under age kids into R rated movies without an adult accompanying them at the request of movie studios not the government.
The same goes for the video game industry. The ESRB rates games at the request of game publishers not the government. The stores don't sell M rated games to minors without a parent present at the request of game publishers not the government.
It is really sad that society trusts the movie industry to regulate itself but not the games industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTOH
It could also mean that it feels it needs to make the definitive ruling, on account of all the time being wasted in lower courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OTOH
That is the same thing I was thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OTOH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence in Games is no realistic
I do know of one "game" that has truly realistic violence. It certainly does dull the sensibilities - and someday you just might be grateful for that.
It is a training game for medical personnel - after all you don't want the paramedic who attends you after a serious accident having to break off to be sick in the ditch. Some people need to have their sensitivities to violent scenes numbed a bit.
see http://www.trusim.com/?page=Demonstrations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violence in Games is no realistic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
READ FIRST!
Mike wrote this >>>"Over the past few years, at least ten states (probably more, but we've lost track) have tried to pass laws banning the sales of violent video games to children."
He then goes to talk about Arnold and a movie that made him famous; what I'm saying is that The Terminator was not aimed at children just like violent video games are not. Video games and movies have an audience to reach and each marketing company knows who they are targeting... Remember Camel Cigarettes targeting children?? That was done on purpose, I don't see how GTA is being marketed to children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: READ FIRST!
Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you appeared to be saying to me was that Terminator was not aimed at children, but violent video games are. In reference to your insulting "READ FIRST!", maybe you should take your own advice and read your posts before submitting them to ensure they clearly say what you really mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: READ FIRST!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violent games don't kill people...
Why are they still trying? Why are they still wasting tax payers dollars across the board, not just in California?
1) If you don't like your kids playing violent video games... BE A BETTER PARENT AND WATCH WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE PLAYING/BUYING/DOING!!!
2) If you sell games you better be carding people, just like bartenders have to. ESRB ratings were not made to look pretty.
3) Stop buying games for your 10yr old nephew when its rated T for TEEN!!!!
4) Violent games do not make people violent. Violent movies do not make people violent. Violent music does not make people violent. Violence is a response to unstable emotions which a person is responsible to themselves to control. This is a personal issue NOT a government law issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Violent games don't kill people...
There are age limits on buying plenty of goods right now, all of which children shouldn't be buying, and their parents should know if they are or not.
Alcohol, smokes, porn, even lotto tickets are all regulated by a magical age limit. This age limit also varies from state to state and country to country.
Now, a child going to the movies by themselves can't see a rated R movie. The theater stops them. I'm not sure if this is a law or just the theaters following common logic. But, if a child is stopped from viewing a rated R movie why should that same child be able to buy a rated R game?
Consistency is what this is about. Not that video games kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Violent games don't kill people...
So if the government doesn't stop children from seeing adult content in the theaters, there's no reason that they should stop them from seeing it in a video game.
Consistency is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Jumping to the statement that it's ironic that Arnold wants to stop kids from buying violent video games b/c he was in violent movies during his acting days is a smokescreen argument with no basis in logic.
3. If the people of California feel that this is an issue and would like this law, then as a public servant it's up to Arnold to fight for it.
As you haven't shown any proof that the people of the state don't want this, only citing that the state is strapped for cash, this post is little more than grandstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er, the entire Civil War would like a word with you please. States cannot enact a law that overrides federal mandate, which the US Constitution specifically does. As an officer of the government, Ah-Nuld ought to know better....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assuming that you're replying to me, if you read my comment carefully, you'll notice that I didn't make an argument that the situation was ironic, just that many people would see it as ironic.
If the people of California feel that this is an issue and would like this law, then as a public servant it's up to Arnold to fight for it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that politicians shouldn't fight for the causes which are important to their constituents, but there are broader principles at play. While many Californians may thinks think that this is a good idea, it doesn't mean that the majority do or, even if there is a majority, that it wouldn't be an unconstitutional encroachment of civil liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So? I'm sure that Infinity Ward don't intend their games to be played by children either (they're the developers of most of the Call of Duty series that's partly triggered this controversy and headquartered in CA). Why should one standard apply to Arnie and another to them?
"2. Jumping to the statement that it's ironic that Arnold wants to stop kids from buying violent video games b/c he was in violent movies during his acting days is a smokescreen argument with no basis in logic. "
Why? There's no basis in the wish to ban/restrict any of these games other than the violent content. Arnie starred in a number of movies with equally violent content. What's the difference, other than the medium?
"3. If the people of California feel that this is an issue and would like this law, then as a public servant it's up to Arnold to fight for it. "
What about all of the people in California whose livelihoods depend on the videogame industry? Aren't their views meant to be represented as well?
"As you haven't shown any proof that the people of the state don't want this"
I'm fairly sure that we haven't been shown that they do, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@42
does that correlate to all these 40-50 year olds form the 70's beng crazy homicidal maniacs ...NOPE
in fact until goerge bush
it avgs about 13-18K gun deaths in the USA alone
and rises until 2006 or so when he left office to a stagaring 32000 GUN related deaths in the USA
so before and after bush you have a rise in violence and is this because people are becoming more and mroe frustrated with not having civil rights
me thinks a lil more of this civil rights removing and there will be a real revolution in the USA.
AND this time its gonna be real bloody as all manner a morons will go "hunting" rivals and revenge, and what can they really do with the bulk of that army overseas?
yea
SPARTACUS WAS HERE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @42
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @42
[ link to this | view in chronology ]