Video Game Free Speech Ruling Aftermath 258
On Monday we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was in violation of the First Amendment's free speech protection. By now, both sides of the debate have had a chance to respond to the Court's ruling. Congressman Joe Baca and CA State Senator Leland Yee pledged to continue the fight for stricter controls on the distribution of violent games, while others cried, "think of the children." Game industry groups were unsurprisingly pleased with the decision, but warned that this won't be the end of it, and asked lawmakers to stop wasting time with such legislation in the future. An article at the NY Times points out how the ruling highlights the lack of clear evidence supporting either side of the debate, and Time notes the Supreme Court's double standard, asking, "Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" Finally, an editorial at Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks (Score:4, Informative)
Why does the Supreme Court treat violent video games differently? Its a double standard...blah blah They acknowledged that and said why in their ruling. They pointed out that not just in American history but in western society leading up to American, we have always done so. Our oldest fairy tails and even our Bible stories depict rather graphic violence even though they are intended for presentation to children. Meanwhile we have always restricted the presentation of sexual images, when not presented in away that society broadly recognizes as high art.
They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.
Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks (Score:3, Informative)
It teaches hate, that's not child friendly.
Re:Wasting time (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of history and laws spread out across thousands of years, detailing God's word, etc. Things change over time. Prophecies are fulfilled, promises are met.
Look at it this way: when the God of the Universe himself comes down and says "Hey, all that stuff I told you before has been taken care of. now all I want you to do is to love Me and each other, and to spread the word." that tends to change one's outlook. The Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow. It still reflects the Word of God, and is thus still applicable for teaching and insight, but it's not like Christians are being told not to eat pork, or not leave their houses on the Sabbath, or go to war with the Canadians because that land was promised as an inheritance at some point in the past.
Love God, love everyone else too. That's what it boils down to.
Now let's go back to being mutually happy that we're allowed to play and buy video games where we shoot up aliens, okay? ;)