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.
How effective are the restrictions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHdovKHDNU
Experiment by Albert Bandura. Shows how kids will reproduce acts of violence they have witnessed.
A few notes:
- This experiment features kids who have unsupervised access to visual depictions of violence. It's not clear if kids still act violent when an adult puts this violence into context for them.
- The experiment does not seem to say much about the long-term effects of exposure to violence.
- Kids will imitate almost any behavior they observe in others, violence is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How effective are the restrictions? (Score:5, Insightful)
In individual-scale studies, people often demonstrate that subjects primed with violent video games are somewhat more likely to act-out violent behaviors, answer ambiguous prompts with the more, rather than less, violent possibility, etc.
In population-scale statistical work, of the 'epidemiological' style, the results usually seem to be that video games, presumably by providing an extremely easy and attractive(and generally quite cheap, too) timesink for the idle and troublesome youngish males who handle most of society's grunt-level violence, appear to reduce the levels of violence sufficiently intense to show up in crime statistics.
Re: (Score:3)
When you 'prime' somebody with a violent video game stimulus, in the sense of 'prime' that they use in the psych studies that provide us valuable insights about how undergrads who want $10 for beer think, you can observe an uptick, in the short term, of appearances of violence themes in free-play exercises, vi
Re: (Score:3)
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids
I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior
The supreme court ruling refers to articles on both those points. They stated that in California, 20% of retailers will sell violent games to children, which compares to the 18% of liquor stores that sell alcohol to minors. The justices also commented on various studies, basically concluding that they are all very subject and totally inconclusive. The actual opinions are full of interesting facts.
The DECISION is meaningless too (Score:2)
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids?
Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions tha
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: (Score:3)
>... 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,
You really haven't read the Bible, have you?
The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
>... 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,
You really haven't read the Bible, have you?
The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.
-- BMO
Incestuous erotic literature at that:
9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the song Baby Come Back" is about pedophilia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Song of Solomon is quite arousing.
Anyone who doesn't get this, Song of Solomon talks about oral sex and many other delights.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not read the "Song of Solomon" recently and I don't have it handy but If my recollection is at all correct its mostly euphemism. Quite titillating, yes if you have any experience with acts alluded to, but not exactly graphic if you don't. The depictions of violence on the other hand tend to be quite specific, and might even be characterized as technical.
My suspicions if it were translated as,
Oh the joy I felt shoving my throbbing penis into your swollen vagina repeatedly.
society would take a dimer view of letting children read Bibles.
Re: (Score:3)
Who the fuck came up with the ida that bible stories "are intended for presentation to children" ?
The bible is most definitely *not* written to be child-friendly, it has plenty of gruesome murders and torture, and a fair bit of sex.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The bible is most definitely *not* written to be child-friendly, it has plenty of gruesome murders and torture, and a fair bit of sex.
We need to ban that book. Think Of The Children!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It teaches hate, that's not child friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "bible" as it stands today wasn't the "bible" of the Jews. There were history scrolls and religious scrolls.. but no "big black book" (or scroll if you prefer) to say ... "there it is! teach them that!"
The old testament (stuff we now convey as the old testament) is a colleciton of anecdotes and stories to teach lessons. The context about ancient hebrew traditions and societal norms were specific to the hebrew people of the time. The concept of "stoning a woman" (people like to bring up about the Bible i
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough I attended a talk by a few well know authors who were talking about themes in old folk tails and fairy tails which they'd come across while researching old stories.
One striking thing was that there tended to be a lot more sexual references.
A lot of disney stories are older ones with the violence toned down and the sex stripped away entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Gunther Grass was outed as having joined the Nazi Youth, his excuses included being unable to stand hearing them have sex every night in their shared bedroom.
Re: (Score:2)
They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.
They did say why, but perhaps some people don't think that "tradition" is a good reason to uphold a decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a fine argument and a legitimate response to the decisions. Saying we should not do something just because of tradition is different than saying I don't understand why we do then when the court has just told you its by tradition.
The Supreme Court has long taken the view that not only should it keep consistent in the technical sense, as to its interpretations but also in the character sense, at least until that character no longer reflects the general character of the public.
This is why geeks alw
Already have a voluntary rating and enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing newspapers keep missing is that there is already a voluntary rating system out there, which all game retailers adhere to. Console makers have already banned Adults Only games from their consoles, and violent M games are kept away from kids by retailers already. By most tests, the system is more effective than the Movie rating system at keeping kids away from M (R) rated content.
So really, the court didn't rule that you can't have a ban. The court ruled that to overcome the first amendment challenge, California had to prove significant interest in a government-enforced ban above and beyond the already in-place industry ban. Since the California law was only going to add legal confusion to an already working voluntary system, the supremes ruled against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If if you want to ban violent media sales to children by law it better be all media. There is no legal force behind movie ratings.
The lack of clear evidence... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to let you know, the MPAA rating system is purely voluntary by the studios and the theaters.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Just to let you know, the MPAA rating system is purely voluntary by the studios and the theaters.
Sure, but the theatres face all kinds of hell if they intentionally allow unaccompanied minors in to R-rated movies in the states.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the double standard - retailers don't face any punishment if they sell an NR or R rated movie to a minor, so why should they face punishment for selling an M rated video game to a minor? An NR (or uncut) movie probably would get an AO rating by the MPAA (effectively either pornographic or have graphic violence that is beyond what even the MPAA allows), but they still sell them in retail stores.
Also, as I've pointed out all along - buying a video game and going to see a movie is not an apples-to-app
Double Standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material. However, in keeping with their job description, they couldn't really do much about that. 'Miller-test obscenity', while pretty unsatisfactory in a number of respects, is one of the few ways to successfully exempt something from First Amendment protections. For reasons having to do with American culture in the past, continuing into the present, that one doesn't mention violence.
Perhaps more importantly, the court argued that the law was attempting to enforce an (unconstitutional) double standard by imposing special restrictions on violent media that happened to be video games, restrictions that were not imposed on violence in other media: had the law flipped out at violence per se, as people often do about sexual content, regardless of medium(except for stuff old enough to have a gloss of cultural respectability, which is why 120 Days of Sodom is on the shelves and Playboy behind the counter, wrapped in plastic...), it would have at least had a shot at getting some Miller-esque test carved out for it. Since it specifically targeted video games, it was quite arguably an attempt to legally silence one specific class of speakers, rather than a specific perfidious topic(which might not have necessarily succeeded; but would have had a better chance...)
The court, for the most part, was just repeating back to us an observation on our own standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuzzyfuzzyfungus got it exactly right. The Supreme Court basically ruled that video games are to be afforded the same protections as books, movies, TV shows, music and works of art, because video games are a legitimate form of creative expression (seriously, play the original Deus Ex and tell me that doesn't qualify.) California can't discriminate against violent video games because California also can't discriminate against violent books, TV shows, movies, paintings and what have you.
Re: (Score:2)
To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material
Sure they could have. They can rule according to the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution about community standards. They have chosen to give community standards more weight than our Constitution. That's entirely thei
Re: (Score:2)
However, speaking empirically about what the court actually does, and what people stand for it doing, things that were invented from whole cloth sufficiently long ago are called "precedent" and taken seriously, and asserting in some vaguely plausible way that a work satisfies the Miller test is, in fact, a successful way to exempt something from First Amendment protections
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, in a "might makes right" kind of way. It's nothing but thuggery though, and deserves to be called out as such at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
The Meaning of Life is... (Score:2, Troll)
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play ra
Re: (Score:2)
Those two activities are a helluva lot more comparable than you think, in terms of mental process and state of mind. Given basketball players who have no more emotional bond or regard for their opponents* than players of GTA do for theirs, those two activities are equally violent upstairs, at least in terms of what the players would like to do to each other.
* Examples? I dunno... perhaps Islamic jihadists versus American corporate CEOs? If two groups of people can completely subhumanize each other - and
Sex and violence? (Score:3)
Sex is usually obvious to identify. What actual "damage" sex does to minors is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recall as early as 5 finding girls to be "interesting" and being quite curious about the differences. This is considered normal and healthy for kids. Oddly enough, the interest and curiosity never stopped. And we also know that when something is denied to someone, it just makes them want it all the more. What's more, I also recall my first experiences with alcohol -- I was also quite young and guess what? I hated it! I didn't learn to like it until my early 20s. I can't say they same would be true for sexual experiences for kids because I have no experience to relate, but there seems to be some indication that "protecting children" from exposure to sexual information is probably more damaging emotionally and psychologically.
Violence is really subjective... easy to identify, but we have to approve the cause or justification first. Recall that people weren't upset that yet another war game was created, but that there was a depiction of a playable present-day "enemy" where the player attacks US soldiers. (There would have been no commotion if the game was only about US soldiers attacking the Taliban.) It's not the violence itself that we seek to limit, it's the thinking behind the violence we seek to limit. Of course, we can't say what we actually mean because then it is clear and obvious that what we think or feel on the subject is pretty anti-american ideal-wise.
So instead of admitting that to ourselves and everyone around us, we just say "ban violence! (with the following exceptions: [insert list of things I approve of])"
Not likely (Score:4, Funny)
many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence
Yea, except those that do the purchasing. Though I'm sure it's been tried, "Call of Knitting: Black Yarn", "Mundane Borrowing Bicycle" or "Halo: Frolicking" probably just wouldn't sell very well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Led to copyright infringement by the senior set.
Led to bicycle traffic violations
And right back to sex.
The bluenoses will always find something to object to.
Unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
If something is found unconstitutional and people keep attempting to push the exact same laws over and over, they should be personally fined for the amount of the cost to the system if again found unconstitutional.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other side of the coin does the same hold true for people petitioning the courts to overturn laws they view as unconstitutional? Should we have started giving fines to women's suffrage activists? Civil rights activists?
Fines are not the answer. The correct answer is to just not re-elect those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Two members of the Supreme Court did say that a more precisely defined law could pass Constitutional muster. This is an open invitation for politicians to try again. This is how our legal system works.
silly question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way are they different? Please provide a neurophysiological explanation.
what's stopping them? (Score:2)
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.
Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.
video games are about catharsis (Score:3)
they are about expressing and releasing violent and sexual energies that have no other outlet. much of violent and sexual impulses cannot be released in socially acceptable ways. so on some basic level, this is why violent and sexual media are so successful: they fill a need
it has always been my assertion that violent and sexual media doesn't CREATE inappropriate violent and sexual real life behavior, but instead serves as a form of releasing what is already there. in other words, those who oppose violent and sexual media are working on an inaccurate model of human psychology: we are not empty vessels that are corrupted. we are vessels already, naturally, innately, full of violent and sexual impulses. and we need a way to release them harmlessly, lest they be released harmfully. so violent and sexual media DECREASE real world inappropriate violence and sexxual behavior in my view
of course, videogames don't HAVE to be violent or sexual
but what i am saying, psychologically, is that the most successful videogames will always be violent or sexual. that's the most important need they fill
Re: (Score:2)
but what i am saying, psychologically, is that the most successful videogames will always be violent or sexual. that's the most important need they fill
Is that why Myst, the Sims, and Farmville are among the most popular games of their times?
Re: (Score:2)
As a Parent (Score:2)
Restricted to Adults != Banned (Score:2, Insightful)
I would actually have liked to see certain computer games restricted to adult sale only. The average gamer is apparently now 37 years old so why should companies not be able to produce games that are aimed exclusively at adults? If a parent wants to show let their kid play Doom or whatever then let them but force the parent to make the choice by purchasing it for them.
By allowing certain games to be restricted to adults we may get more games that were produced exclusively for adults. Some of them might be q
FTFA I call Bullshit (Score:2)
So why can't a minor go buy porn then? (Score:2)
If games are free speech, aren't movies and magazines?
Why can't a minor go and buy porn whenever he wants to?
Why is it that violence is more acceptable than sex?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If you're old enough to enjoy porn, you're old enough to buy it. Now, stop trying to toss us down a slippery slope.
I really don't understand the debate (Score:2)
What's wrong with movie-style ratings for video games?
I still don't get... (Score:2)
Re:Wasting time (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run. </sarcasm>
Re:Wasting time (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, BTW, in regards to
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run.
</sarcasm>
Clearly you've never read the bible. Endless killing of people of other religions is "OK" even encouraged by God. On the other hand, extreme societal control of what goes on in "private" bedrooms is mandatory.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? There are a few broad guidelines about homosexuality, masturbation, and some OCD dont-touch-menstrual-blood stuff in Leviticus, but there's tons of polygamy, concubinage, rape, and incest that's treated as an unremarkable part of the scenery throughout the old testament..
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
Re:Wasting time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that modern Christians don't go back to the OT for Rules and Regulations, you don't know actual Christians, just their textbook. They're rather fond of the Ten Commandments (most of which I get behind as well), but many of them find plenty of specific things in (for example) Leviticus that they consider Still Enforceable.
Re: (Score:3)
Some. Go on, try it. Some Christians. There are literally thousands of sects of Christianity, all believing something slightly different. Painting them all with the brush of, say, the Westboro "Baptists" is a huge, sweeping, unfounded generalization.
Re: (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 outl
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you to call me a poser? And what exactly is your authority concerning what it means to follow what's in the bible?
It sounds to me like you're trying to impose your misunderstandings on people you disagree with anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of stories and anecdotes spread out across thousands of years, before being written down by many diferent people, supposedly detailing God's word, etc. and then translated by an english king, in order to slip in his own desired revisions.
There. Fixed that for you.
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped, I think the message is pretty clear. How does the context change that? Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death? Not the caring, compassionate God that I personally want to blindly obey without questioning. In fact, that's the reason that fundamentalists of ANY religion scare the shit out of me. Love your fellow man, sur
Re: (Score:3)
Question:
If "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" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking
Re: (Score:2)
Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death?
Don't be silly. I just read the Leviticus passage, and I tell you surely: It's just the men that have sex with other men! Clearly, even the Lord has a soft spot for lesbians....or is just obsessed with making rules about cock as a method of ensuring that dick jokes would be funny until the end of days.
Re: (Score:2)
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it.
I fail to see the requirement for imposing the inability of different people to interpret a work of literature differently. I suppose that you've read the Bible yourself and interpreted it to say that "every word [of it] is immutable truth," and that all others must agree with only this viewpoint?
It's one thing to "pick and choose" what you find convenient, but quite frankly I find the combination of "pursuit of happiness" and "love thy neighbor" to mean that legislating against or denying marriage of sam
Re: (Score:3)
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped
John 8, 1-11
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
You have now been educated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you call "extreme societal control", I suppose. The OT had rather harsh punishments for pretty silly things, but that doesn't automatically mean there's actual control. But it could be that I'm thinking more in terms of governmental control instead of societal control. But societal control sounds weird to me, because society itself is rather uncontrollable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You haven't debated with a fundamentalist, have you? Which parts of either Testament are valid is entirely up to whoever you are talking to, and dependent on what point they are attempting to make.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't read the New Testament, have you? Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore.
I'm Jewish, you insensitive clod!
Ok, not really, I just couldn't resist using that meme to point out that the New Testament means jack to some people.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the Old Testament means jack to quite a lot of people too. But calling it the Old Testament suggests there's also a new one. If I'm not mistaken, Jews call it the Tenach, right?
Re:Wasting time (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That still counts. And gays are still evil and must be persecuted. But it's OK to shave (contrary to Leviticus 19.27). And to wear blended fabrics.
See, Jesus really said that only the parts of the bible that are convenient to our goals of oppressing people who are not like us are valid. I know that's not actually in the bible, but it's true. Honest. The rest of the bible can be disposed of, which is good because bacon tastes good.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean we can drop the whole creationism debate?
Please, yes. Also please point out to any creationists that the bible contains two different and slightly contradictory creation stories from very different times.
All the excessive biblical literalism is getting pretty tiresome.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of different interpretations possible for that support. He clearly had no problem violating a lot of the Jewish rules at that time, including gathering food at the sabbath, which was explicitly forbidden in Exodus. He also said that while he didn't come to change or abolish the law, he did come to fulfill it. What that means exactly is anyone's guess, but unless he was a flaming hypocrite in that one regard, he probably didn't mean that the law would remain as binding as it had been in the pas
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting some followers, then! I'm sure they will value your words above any other. Similarly, any follower of Jesus will value his words above those of the (rather heavily edited, any credible scholar will admit) OT. It doesn't automatically mean that the OT is wrong, but the NT does put the OT in a completely different light. As it should, according to the words of Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
But exposure to Michael Jackson might.
Why, is he a zombie (again) now? Or maybe a vampire?
Re: (Score:2)
>Any toddler can tell the difference between real and "cartoon" violence
That is not true.
silver lining to the double standard (Score:2)
Although I find the double standard for violence vs. sex disappointing (especially being more of a fan of the latter than the former), I'd rather have a double standard than for them to deny them both the full protection of the First Amendment. And the existence of double standards can sometimes be used to leverage equal treatment in the long run (see the civil rights movements, for examples).
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the media and general populous of the United States consider violent images and sexual images to be the same?
They don't. Remember the uproar over the exposed nipple during the superbowl?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Politicians can pretend to be dealing with violence by putting on cowboy hats for photo sessions.
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
And, of course, "too much" is "more (or better) than me."
Re: (Score:2)
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
That's because you can never have too much sex, only too many children. Even suggesting limiting the number of kids someone should have would be political suicide for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some sort of quota that prevents the publication of more than one type of video game?
Yes actually, though I wouldn't call share holders who would rather make a guaranteed buck than gamble on something new a "quota".