Here’s an interesting exercise. See if you have an answer for Justice Breyer who, along with Clarence Thomas, dissented from the 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that says that companies can sell extremely violent video games to your kids without your knowledge or consent.
Breyer filed a dissenting opinion arguing it makes no sense to restrict sales of pornography but allow kids to play games that depict graphic violence.
“But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?” Breyer said.
“What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?”
You wont find many people who are more First Amendment absolutists than me, but I’ve got a problem with treating brutally violent and misogynistic video games like books. I also think it’s a mistake to treat exposure to sex as worse than exposure to violence. Maybe both should be legal, but violence should be banned before sex.
Then again, this is America.
“Without your knowledge or consent” essentially strips and Tipper-Gore type restrictions from video games. So who is going to bring the pornography case? And how is it going to get past the lower court and appeals court judges?
Strict constructionist First Amendment types would argue that there is no difference. And unless you have some substantial studies to show that representations create harm, their view makes sense.
The other issue in this case is parental control of their children. How much power should parents have to shut popular culture out of their children’s lives?
By it being violence, I’ll bet it avoids the scrutiny of the family values crowd.
I don’t really understand this comment.
Who knows but it does make me wonder. How far the Pukes have come in 20 or 25 years. Wasn’t the GOP, along with Al Gore and HolyJoe, a big wheel on the protecting kids from violent video games and naughty music?
What about it don’t you understand?
For a parallel case to be brought that would generate a similar decision (or not) for pornography, someone with standing has to do it. Is Larry Flynt’s organization going to use this decision, for example?
On this decision, I hear crickets from the “family values” crowd that came to power in the 1970s and 1980s by shutting down “adult” book stores and theaters.
For a lot of people, the issue in question is parents’ ability to control what their children see and hear and the fantasy life that their children have. That is what is driving attempts to have government act against the First Amendment and legislatively act in loco parentis.
Is that clearer?
It’s clearer. On the other hand, which of the following would disappoint/anger you the most. To discover your child:
a) has a large stash of hard drugs in his room
b) to find him having unprotected sex in his room
c) to find him playing a video game with the objective of raping a mother and her daughters
Not good choices, admittedly. But if your answer is c) it’s not because you want to “control [what they] see and hear and the fantasy life [they] have.” It’s because you don’t want them to be terrible loathsome people.
For all of those things I’d mostly be upset at myself that I’d screwed up in my parenting. I’m not sure I want the government to be making those things illegal though – I’d feel the same way if I walked into the room and he had a giant poster of Hitler on the wall, or had Rush Limbaugh playing on his radio.
What. The. Fuck.
Where is there a video game where that is the “objective”? 100% serious Booman. I’ve been playing games of all sorts my entire life from cartoony to gritty and that has never once happened or even been referenced as the objective of the PLAYER character.
Now, there are certainly antagonists who you have inference of this having taken place, or taken place. But never have I ever seen or heard of an actual in game scene where you either participate or view a rape. So you lose any credibility in your argument when you jump to that incomprehensible example.
In addition, this just removes a ban of a retailer’s ability to sell a game to a minor. Stores like Wal-Mart still have a policy against even carrying games above a certain rating, and those won’t go away with the removal of the ban.
And lastly, it is 100% on the parent to be aware of any game that reaches the level of debauchery you are suggesting. They aren’t hard to hear about, a game like “The Witcher” where there are sexually explicit scenes, or a game like “Manhunt” where there is extreme violence get plenty of press and should be kept off a young child’s shelf. However, if your kid is 16, he’s seen an R rated movie and is capable of (at least in my experience) separating reality from gruesome movies and games.
I truly don’t understand your fear of video games. Movies, nor television, nor rock and roll, nor books haven’t “ruined” children as a whole in the past… why should video games be the first to do it?
And let me clarify this slightly by saying that no major publisher or retailer makes the sort of game with the extreme examples listed by the Justice. Those games are out there as hacks, downloads, and at the websites of game creators for sure. You can also use your own twisted mind and a level designer to make them if you so desire.
But those types of games (rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing) don’t exist at the retail level.
Your ignorance is not my problem. Come to me with a real argument and I’ll debate you.
Where would you stand on people with their own 9-10 year olds giving your son games like Resident Evil for a birthday gift, despite the fact that you are very open about your opposition to such games being in the hands of children?
Of course, my older children went to the same school as the children of a woman murdered in a grocery store parking lot by some psycho, and in an even odder twist of fate, a family friend’s husband was the one to find the same guy’s first shooting victim in a parking lot when he arrived to work one morning. So I probably have a skewed view; I also don’t think anyone- regardless of age- really needs to seek out these violent games, but particularly not those who are already disturbed and turned on by violence. And who really knows how much the easy access to glorified violence in our culture contributes to that in susceptible individuals?
If someone gave my 10 year old Resident Evil as a birthday gift I would take it away from him and tell him he could have it when he’s older. It’s what I have been doing with my son since the day he was born and it’s what I plan to do until I and my wife feel that he’s mature enough to handle it for himself – probably somewhere between age 12 and age 15, depending on how he develops.
It’s just parenting – yeah it’s a tough job, but I don’t see why I should expect the government to go around with a vice squad busting video game stores for selling mature titles to underage kids. They don’t do that with movie theaters or libraries or bookstores and I don’t see why this would be any different (and if they did it with a library or a bookstore I would be UP IN ARMS all up in people’s faces about it too – so I’m not sure why the double standard when my under 18-year-old can more easily get his hands on a copy on something like American Psycho or Clockwork Orange or Fight Club than he can anything rated M from a video game dealer).
Heh. I took it away and exchanged it for something more suitable – I don’t think that’s appropriate an appropriate gift for older kids either. 🙂
I don’t expect someone else to do the parenting for me, I just wish we lived in a society where we weren’t salmon swimming upstream against a tide of cultural violence.
ROFLMAO! I needed that laugh this Tuesday morning.
Boo! Seriously!
What game had the objective of hiding hard drugs in a bedroom, having unprotected sex or raping a mother and daughters?
You tell me that game and I will go purchase it today!
Seriously, Boo. From the sublime to the ridulous. And you always preach to us from High of how much of an “adult” you are.
And to all those clowns relying on the government to protect THEIR precious, innocent flowers from the slings and arrows of the real world, I say, “Grow the FUCK up and your own goddamned kids!” Sheesh!
Grow the FUCK up and watch your own goddamned kids! Just saying.
All of them. The issue isn’t freedom of speech. It is that I am responsible for raising my children and have the authority until they are 18 to set what limits they must observe.
You left out d. To find his or her (there are hers in the world) secret cigarette stash.
Or e. To find out that he or she had been opening the liquor bottle for underage friends. And themselves.
Or f. To find that he (this is mostly a he behavior) has a switchblade, springknife or firearm that I don’t know about.
And I do want to control the fantasy life they have and the symbols they respect or consider authoritative — up to a point. To the point at which they can clearly distinguish fantasy from reality and can responsibly decide which dreams to live out.
But I don’t want producers of games to have to do my parenting for me.
It’s most definitely worse. Our ratings system makes absolutely zero sense. A movie with a naked woman in it will require an “R” rating immediately, unless it’s considered “art” (like Titanic). However, movies that are very violent can get a PG-13 rating quite easily. I also think we worry too much about cursing.
I think we should follow Sweden on this area. France is even worse than us, though. I mean, The Big Lebowski got a U (Tous publics) valid for all audiences rating there. And you could see The Godfather at age 12 without parental consent.
Still, we prioritize sex over violence, and it’s disgusting. You can see the Puritan roots showing in that avenue (given the barbaric Christians destroyed Greek and Roman art by chopping off the penises).
The only problem I have with Breyers’ comments is that, as an avid gamer, I can’t think of a single game where what he describes occurs. Maybe I’ve missed something. But the violence in video games is no worse than the violence in movies. The gaming industry, like films, also voluntarily includes aid restrictions. This is one area where I think, also like films, that if parents don’t want their kids playing games rated mature, then they shouldn’t buy them for their kids. If parents aren’t paying attention to what kind of games their kids play, they aren’t good parents. As far as equating them to books (without getting into the narrative development of video games over the last 15 years), check out some genre fiction and tell me if you still feel the same way.
From Alito’s partial dissent:
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the opinion here. Are Breyer and Thomas saying video-game ratings are a violation of free-speech, and should be eliminated? If so, then I think that’s wrong. I do think it’s wrong to ban the games from existence, though.
No and no.
Thomas is saying that kids should be treated they way the were in the 18th-Century (original intent). You know, whipped and put in the fields. And no back talk, either.
Breyer is saying that it’s ridiculous to say that we can shield kids from sexual obscenity, deny them access to R rated movies without a parent, but we can’t restrict the sale of video games about rape and murder and political assassination to minors.
These games have labels. That allows a parent who is the company of their child to say, ‘No, you can’t have the game where you rape squaws for fun.’ Theoretically, it allows a parent to confiscate such a game from the child if they discover it on the premises.
California said, ‘No, you can’t sell that shit to kids unless a parent consents to it.’
No different from going to the movies.
Barely different than buying alcohol or cigarettes, also products that are harmful.
The Supreme Court said, ‘No, murdering computerized Indians is no different from reading about murdering real Indians, but it is different from watching a movie about murdering real Indians if any of the real Indians are topless.”
Look, I don’t want the government all up in our business, but I gotta wonder about this ruling. I don’t see parental consent as violating a kid’s free speech rights when it comes to a game about raping and butchering people.
If parents are okay with taking their kids to a horror movie, that’s fine, and the same standard should apply to video games. Video games are not ideas, they’re not books, they’re entertainment.
All you need to know is that Scalia flatly ruled out that violence could be obscene. That informs his reasoning.
Now, three out of the four liberals on the Court signed off on this. I’m not saying it isn’t a close question with real slippery-slope questions involved. But I’m more in the Breyer camp. Come to me when you’ve gotten rid of the sexual limitations on kid’s free speech rights. Then we can talk about letting them rape and murder people without their parents consent.
Right, no different than going to the movies. I always thought that the video-game labels were the same as going to the movies. I mean, when I wasn’t 17 yet, I tried buying a game and I was asked to present my identification to make sure I was of age to buy it. So essentially my rights were violated when they denied the sale of the game?
Anyway, I just looked it up and “by law” it’s up to the retailer themselves. I guess California was different.
I’m not sure how they can say there’s a difference with nudity; what a ridiculous observation, as I stated earlier.
In any case, if I’m understanding all of this correctly, and I believe I am, I am firmly in 100% agreement with you. I’d need to see well-reasoned arguments made back and forth before I’d reach a final decision. I’m also going to ask my friend who’s on the board of the National Youth Rights Association in DC what he thinks about all of this.
And by 100% agreement, I mean Breyer’s opinion. I just don’t get how violence is protected but sex isn’t… It makes no sense.
But if you were to tell me that by the first amendment we “can’t protect children from sexual imagery”, then I would support the rest of the liberal judges. And I think Breyer would, too. He’s pretty absolutist on free-speech.
It makes sense if you think about our USA culture – enjoying the body is bad (sex, food – especially for women) but having the body hacked up is good (reminds the body that there’s something wrong with its mere existence and it’s there to be tamed into submission not to be enjoyed). furthermore, we have a culture that supports violence and rejects the gentler emotions – though many of us are engaged in changing this.
Yglesias today said what I’ve been trying to articulate this entire time:
For the record, I’ve long believed that 16 year olds should be able to vote.
Actually, the case here was brought by the videogame developers on behalf of themselves, not on behalf of some right for 16-year olds to play Grand Theft Auto. They argued that California’s law was restrictive and would have resulted in many games not being made because the financial incentives just wouldn’t work out. In other words, the videogame developers claimed that California’s law was de facto censorship (and the SCOTUS agreed).
This wasn’t about rights for teenagers. This was about rights of free expression for videogame makers.
The court didn’t even discuss the developer’s rights in their decision except in the small sense that they were being singled-out.
Other than that slight nod, the entire decision is based on whether California can create a restricted category of speech that applies only to minors. In other words, the entire basis of the decision is based not on the developer’s rights but the customer’s rights.
I guess the question is really about voluntary rating vs. government mandate.
Video games are not a substance like nicotine or alcohol. So, I can see why they would be treated differently.
The movie industry worked out a deal with the government to avoid strict regulation and protect their artistic freedom. That’s what the video game industry tried to emulate.
The thing is, I don’t think it would be unconstitutional to have a law against admitting a child to an ‘R’ rated movie. Our current system is better because it is more flexible and it depoliticizes art, which I think is a good thing.
But the movie industry is obligated to show some restraint and the theaters have to do a decent job of enforcing their rules. If they don’t, the deal could be off and laws would become necessary.
That’s how I see it.
After all, this is a dubious free speech issue. It not’s a child’s free speech that is threatened but their free access to other’s speech. No one is denying anyone’s right to make snuff video games. Creative activity isn’t being restricted.
Now, denying children free access to speech is generally not done, with the exception of titty-speech. But if it can be done for titty-speech on the grounds that it’s obscene and corrupts the youth, then by what constitutional principle can it not be done for some of these horrible video games that shock the conscience (or should).
This comes down to giving kids the right to buy something that no decent person thinks they should have.
I’m unconvinced that kids have the constitutional right to buy rape videos but not to look at some nice-looking titties.
You do realize that the MPAA is not a government organization, right? Its ratings are submitted to on a voluntary basis by the movie studios. Same with the ESRB which rates the video games. That was the basis of the suit against the California law. The government does not restrict access by children to any type of movie, and letting the government do that with video games would have been unprecedented.
All of that is a different issue from the sex vs. violence argument you and Breyer are raising. I completely agree with it, but it has nothing to do with how the case gets decided.
Correct. So, Gamestop, which requires my permission before selling an “M” game to my 16 year old son is the same as AMC not allowing him to view an R rated movie without me. It is not the government setting the rules, but private industry. I don’t disagree with the ruling.
Nope, I didn’t know that. Man, all sorts of stuff that I have not realized. No wonder I was so confused with this ruling.
Ok, I agree with the decision. But I still don’t understand why sexual imagery can be restricted, and that part still doesn’t make sense.
.
Just a video game?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Why can’t we treat video games like art? Just because games are beneath you doesn’t mean that we should treat them as some sort of lesser-than pursuit. Some games are trash, yes, and some games are really, really artistic, including the “brutally violent” ones. Same goes for books: some are trash and some are elevated into art. Who are you and your likeminded brethren to go around telling me and mine what I shall or shant purchase?
Your 1st Amendment “absolutism” really isn’t, sir. You become more conservative each and every day. Didn’t Winston Churchill make a (in)famous quote about that? I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
The second problem appears to be that he finds it wrong that we restrict obscenity in terms of sex (prurient interest) but not violence. That’s not an unreasonable point. Scalia points out that Americans are just that way. We are traditionally much more relaxed about violence when it comes to kids than sex. The contradiction exists in American society and so is reflected in the law.
The law is a solution in search of problem to me because it’s not the case that anyone is willingly selling these games to minors. How hard is it to download equivalent movies via torrent these days? How hard is it to find violent rape fantasies written on internet fetish sites? In most of these places all you have to do is click the link to claim you’re 18 and go.
The ruling itself suggests a number of problems with the law as written.
Free speech rocks!