Video Games Not Protected Form of Speech 482
E-Rock writes "Video Games are lumped with child porn as unprotected forms of speech. "A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech." Story with limited details at Nando."
Virtual video games? (Score:2, Insightful)
Voyager should be an unprotected form of speech (Score:0, Insightful)
Maybe if it were lumped in with child porn as unprotected speech, it would be less attractive to people as entertainment.
Well, most people. Not me, but most people.
some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our government is supposed to protect us, its citizens.. But everyone i talk to agrees with me that micromanagement in a corporate environment sucks, isnt this just micromanagement from the government into a family unit?
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:0, Insightful)
A hard time swallowing? Would you have a hard time swallowing Lieutenant Commander Data's 12-inch long cyber-cock? Seven of Nine doesn't have a problem with it.
Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is that *any* different from restricting minors' access to certain video games? If society is going to allow freedom of expression in the content of games, it also has the responsibility of protecting vulnerable children from potentially harmful content. With freedom comes responsibility.
Parents, at home, they can let their kids play whatever games they want, or watch whatever movies, or look at whatever magazines. But in public space, there is a certain generally accepted level of protection for children that applies to all of these.
What is the point of this story? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not American so forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't children's access to violent or sexually explicit videos/books/sex shows/whore houses already limited over there as in the rest of the world and further more isn't this regarded as a good thing?
why is anyone surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
What those who might protest are forgetting is that until someone reaches the age of majority in the US, his/her rights - particularly "Constitutional" rights - are severely limited. Most rights that children have are those given to them by their parents.
they have time for this?! (Score:2, Insightful)
If the county has the time and manpower to help parents "protect the physical and emotional health" of their children by worrying about what video games they play then the county needs to have it's budget cut. Most counties can't keep the potholes in their streets filled or balance their budgets and yet these guys want to help folks raise their kids... nope, sorry guys, I don't think so!
Welcome to the club. (Score:2, Insightful)
Movies, music, magazines, etc. have been suffering the same way for years. This is not a troll: I am all for age-restriction of content. If I want my kids to see something, they'll see it, because I'll buy it and give it to them. Otherwise, I prefer that inappropriate speech be a little harder for them to access.
Are we for this or against it? (Score:3, Insightful)
On this one I'm not so sure though. Are we supposed to think that video games are a legitimate form of self-expression? Because that seems like a bit of a stretch for me. I don't ever recall seeing a video game that was seriously being used to get a point across in artistic or political fashion (Okay, maybe the one where you were a Palestinian fighting Jews with rocks, but that's still only one).
I don't know how to feel on this, which makes me uneasy. Where's JonKatz? If he'd attach a little rant here somewhere I could just take the opposite position and feel fine with myself.
The judge saw the wrong games... (Score:3, Insightful)
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
---End quote
This guy didn't try and play and of the final fantasy games. All those games push a fairly similar agenda of machine == bad and protect the earth. Or MGS, if you don't think that killing is wrong after playing MGS, then you didn't watch the cut scenes ( that games lives in contridiction, because it preaches that violence and killing are wrong, but the only way to beat it is to be involved with killing people ).
If he was only playing MK4, SFXXXSuperCapcomMarvelFighterTurboMegaAlphaSpecia
I feel that most games released today resemble the HollyWood schlock rather then the artistic projects that get produced. More like Scorpion King rather then say Pi. For every artistic game like MYST, there are a hundred shoot-em-up death game 2000 knock offs.
The guy only saw 4 games, I bet that if you showed certain movies to a judge who had never seen movies before you could get the same verdict, that movies have no artistic merit as well.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not legal for a minor to buy pornographic magazines but as far as I know there is nothing stopping that minor's father/mother from buying it for them for them to have in their own home.
So yes, there should be a reconsideration on what does and does not fall under protected speech but the Parental argument just as easily swings the other way
Um, you guys just don't understand.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Keywords: Limit, Children
Because, you know, adults can buy child porn.
Video games aren't leaving the realm of protected speech. They aren't banning them. They're saying children shouldn't have access to it, like porn, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and many other things 95%+ of America says children shouldn't have access to. And to be honest, I've played some games that I don't think children should play.
this is such shite (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that children should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think that there should be restrictions on what they can buy and that ultimately that decision lies with the parents. But to lump video games in with child porn is a travesty to those laws. IMHO this judges ruling lessens the laws regarding child porn. The immediate effect of this ruling doesn't bother me, but the specifics of why it was ruled the way it was, does.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My only thought at this point is, who should set the rules on what is acceptable and unacceptable for a developing child to see? I'm not talking about ages 8-12 or whatever.. but mid to late teens... are growing constantly at that age...
Sometimes, letting them discover some parts of the real world is necessary. You and I both know what a gun can do, and I think it can sometimes backfire keeping a devloping teen locked away from being able to experience certain elements of the real world.
Surely, a parent would tell their children what is right, and what is wrong. So, after the child was raised properly with the knowledge of right and wrong, if they desire to go learn of the *real world* i dont think there should be a magic cut off at 17-18 when they are then declared arbitrarily to be "mature enough" to be exposed to it all at once.
Its just a part of growing up, IMHO.
MPAA Film ratings not a "law" (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, the MPAA rates the film (their methodology is as controversial as the ratings system in general) and the exhibitors (that is, the movie theaters) agree to restrict ticket sales in accordance with the MPAA ratings.
The MPAA ratings are also used to determine when advertisements for movies are permitted-- that's why you don't see ads for R-rated movies during hours when kids are watching TV. Or at least that's the idea-- there was a scandal about a year ago where a lot of R-rated films was being advertised to children on TV.
Apparently, the film company's defense was that ad-purchasing time packages did not match the resolution of the MPAA ratings system-- so there was no way to buy advertising time in slots that exactly matched the demographics of the ratings. (And I'm sure the fact that most theaters weren't checking IDs made the spillover ok too)
I think (but I'm not sure) that blockbuster and other video rental places also check IDs just as theaters do. But I wonder if they care about video games... anyone know?
W
Arg. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Voyager should be an unprotected form of speech (Score:0, Insightful)
This isn't about turning off the fucking TV. This is about the fucking future of the human race.
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, conservatives need to divorce the religious right before they can claim that they stand for personal freedoms at all.
Re:My $0.02.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Things "that may portray a distorted or possibly dangerous view of life for a child" -- I'd say that the Bible and the Koran both qualify. Faith denies reason, and promoting faith over reasoning does not seem particularly beneficial.
What about Choose-Your-Own-Adventures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?
Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?
Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?
Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?
Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?
Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?
Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?
Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?
Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?
It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.
Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.
Re:which four? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
Four games. Four fucking games. Out of a entire fucking INDUSTRY, this asshole reviews four games. This is like reveiwing 'Ishtar', 'Waterworld', 'Howard the Duck', and 'Glitter' and then saying that all American movies suck.
I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.
'Black and White' - Morality play, pure and simple. What's the difference between right and wrong?
'Max Payne' - Dark Psychological Thriller with some gritty 3PS thrown in for taste.
'Starcraft' - Betrayal, Greed, and Cosmic justice carried out against a RTS background.
'Diablo II' - Relgion versus damnation. Hell, most RPG's have storylines. Some are better some are worse. What if the plotline of a RPG was that I was a judge trying to stamp out virtual kiddie porn?
Four fucking games. Gimme a break.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We agreee that the judge botched the ruling, and I agree completely that I don't need to be, nor should I be, around my kid 24x7 to make sure she stays out of trouble, but it's not the government's place to do my job for me.
The point here, as others have mentioned, is one of micromanagement. If I don't want my kid playing violent video games (or smoking, or watching R-Rated movies), I tell her not to and, if I've done my job as a parent, she won't. Same goes for drugs, pr0n, teen sex, etc. Yes, there are some cases (ethanol, cigarettes) where there are proven harmful consequences where I don't mind their intervention, but there is no proof whatsoever that video games are going to hurt anything but the kid's thumb muscles.
The movie ratings are, in many respects, a farce. The whole concept of strictly "age dependent" ratings is inane. Yes, it's convenient and there is some justification for it (statistical averages) but there is no mystical transition in head space when someone turns 17,18,21 that makes them suddenly able to understand things they couldn't understand the day before - or take responsibility for same.
All the ordnance does is put additional burdens on retailers with no real benefit to the people it's trying to protect. THAT is what is patently wrong about it.
Re:Don't they do this already? (Score:3, Insightful)
I only read the Nando article, so it may have garbled the issues, but if something is not "protected speech," it can be banned. It strikes me that a better (and narrower) rationale for upholding the statute is that the games at issue fall into the category of "indecent" speech (think George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit), which can be regulated so as to prevent accidental access by children, but not banned outright.
The quotation in the article suggests that this particular judge doesn't think that the games qualify as "speech" at all, which sounds sort of ridiculous, but it may have been taken out of context.
Anyone have a link to the text of the decision?
Re:which four? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a bad list, but I can do one (or four) better.
The Longest Journey - Adventure games are really the closest thing you can get to a movie in a game. TLJ is one of the best to come out recently, though it was a toss-up between this and Grim Fandango.
Zork - It's almost like reading! Surely even he can get that through his thick skull.
Deus Ex - One of the more literate FPSes. You've got to throw an action one in there.
Tetris - Hey, if we can get him hooked maybe he'll see things in a different light.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that he has NO PLACE JUDGING WHAT IS SPEECH AND WHAT ISN'T . But if he was a good judge I guess he'd know that already.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
None. It would have been legal.
Re:So, name four games that *do* meet the standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Having named some games in this genre, I think anyone else can recall several more advernture games that are essentially an interactive novel.
Re:which four? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll see your four and raise you four more.
The Legend Of Zelda - The Triforce should be a controlled substance.
Mega Man - Rehabitilitation of mad scientists doesn't work.
Donkey Kong Country - On the other hand, rehabilitation does work for gorillas.
Super Mario Brothers - Trust the fungus.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Many things are protected speech. Porn (for the most part) is protected.... at least insofar as the Court has refused to define obsenity in any real meaningfull sence. Justice Stone once said "I'll know obsenity when I see it" which more or less sums up our Judicial System's take on the issue.
That said there is a difference between what is protected and what is freely available. Playboy's pictures (nudes) are protected speach, but you can't buy a Playboy until you're 18.
Printing something is direct speech. It's a form of expression.
Buying something is indirect speech. Voting with your wallet if you will.
In order for Congress to restrict what you have the right to buy it must restrict your right to indirect speech. The Court (not court) has a test for this. It is known as the "compelling state interest test." The upshot of this is that the State must prove that it has a compelling reason to restrict this speech. If no such reason is proven the challenge fails and the law is overturned. It is one of the few cases wherein the DEFENDENT has the burden of proof (assuming the state is being sued for restricting my freedom of speech).
I want to make this clear because of the misleading nature of the title. A decision which limits what I can buy does not in any way make a ruling as to weather video games are or are not free speech. It simply states that a judge thought that the Government has a compelling reason to limit who can buy what.
That being said, the normitive upshot of all this is fairly simple. If a parrent wants their kid to play this game they can buy it for them. The force of law only prevents a child from going behind a parrents back and buying the game himself. There is little danger of some sort of governmental intrusion into anyone's life considering the allready curtailed freedoms allowed to minors in this country.
Re:Under 18 rights (Score:2, Insightful)
The usual justification for this confusing set of adjudications was that children must be "safeguarded from abuses," and that the state may continue to create laws that will help parents and teachers discharge their joint responsibility for their children's well-being. Moreover, the Court said, since children do not have the "full capacity for individual choice," they may be deprived of certain adult rights (e.g., to marry, to vote), and their activities can be regulated if it can be shown that this will "safeguard the family unit and parental authority." In sum, the catch-phrase of the 1970s Court that "children are persons" is precisely that: a phrase that lacks the precision of a normative principle.