Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Pepperdine law professory Barry McDonald has an interesting piece in the LA Times on the Supreme Court case involving California's ban on selling violent video games to minors (Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association).
The law does not ban violent video games, but it forbids selling them to minors. Those over 18 can still purchase the games - they can even purchase the games on behalf of a minor. The idea is that if junior wants the slash 'em game badly enough, he'll have to ask mom or dad to buy it for him.
The law has been challenged on First Amendment grounds, and it faces an uphill struggle in the Supreme Court because, under the precedents, laws that restrict content are subject to a high burden -- too high, says McDonald. The professor argues that our "extreme" first amendment jurisprudence makes it impossible to pursue various desirable policies for fear of infringing something that might be considered "speech."
As much as I hesitate to (a) limit the First Amendment, and (b) agree with Schwarzenegger (who is fighting to defend the law), I think the Terminator and Professor McDonald have a point. I find it hard to believe that the original meaning of the First Amendment was so broad as to forbid public-policy based restrictions on access to content that could be harmful. I wonder whether the Founders would have even considered such "entertainment" to be speech. Thoughts?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
I wouldn't want my hypothetical small child playing violent video games, but I also wouldn't want The Terminator or the government assuming responsibility for raising my hypothetical small child.
Besides, where's a 10 year old going to a) find the money to buy himself a $200 video game console, b) find the money to buy the violent video game, and c) find the wheels to drive him to the local Toys 'R Us?
May '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
From an ignorant layman's view, the 1st Amendment seems clearly directed at religious and political speech. I generally favor legal interpretations which assume no intent beyond a law's actual words.
I follow the game industry closely and know a number of game developers, so I've been hearing them rant about this law for a while. Like in any artistic industry, opinions regarding censorship tend be libertine (unless it's conservative views being suppressed). But in this case they have a point.
On the one hand, pornography is similarly restricted from minors by law. On the other hand, R-rated films are not. Like with films, sales of games with an M rating (M for Mature... equivalent to R for films) are already restricted from minors by the biggest retailers like Wal-Mart and Gamestop, but they're done so without law.
Legally, I see no reason why a local government cannot restrict any media from sale to minors, though one should consider if such restrictions could also be placed on journalism (facts and fiction are different ways of communicating truth... and they're called news "stories" for a reason). Non-legally, the law is foolish and unnecessary.
May '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
How did this law manage to get passed by one of the most liberal legislatures in the country, by the way? I mean, liberals love to censor people, but not themselves! The game industry is still grounded in California and other liberal areas.
Oct '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Where are the parents? That is the problem.
Oct '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
It's sad that we've come to a point in our history where we must decide on the "constitutionality" of things that would have been unspeakable abominations to the Founding Fathers. We're discussing whether or not games, the point of which is to kill innocent people in horribly violent ways, should be peddled to children.
Words describing the marketing of such a game to children would not have passed the lips of the Founding Fathers, even in private. And we expect that they should have accounted for such things, in writing, in the Constitution and thus into the fiber of the new nation they were building?
Jul '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
"I find it hard to believe that the original meaning of the First Amendment was so broad as to forbid public-policy based restrictions on access to content that could be harmful."
Could be harmful. Slippery-slope.
Read De Seno's latest post.
May '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
But Diane, it's not taking that responsibility from you, since you're still able to buy the game for your child if you wish. The law actually enables and encourages parental discretion, in the same way as laws prohibiting the sale of X-rated movies to kids, or--as a more dramatic example--laws prohibiting abortions for minors w/o parental notification.
The law is parent-empowering, and as such, it's appropriate. Arnold finally got one right.
Edited on Nov 17, 2010 at 3:44pmAug '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
I have no problem with ratings systems being enforced by those who enter into those agreements. This doesn't require state action at all. There is currently a robust rating system for video games that provides ample information regarding the games to consumers.
There is nothing to prevent organizations like WalMart using their power to tell UbiSoft that if they want to sell their games at WalMart, then they have to require other distributors to follow an "M" means "M" policy. Equally, a company like WalMart can affect sales by not carrying games that are unrated.
This is something that can be entirely market/community driven and doesn't require the intrusion of the State. There is no compelling State interest in this issue.
May '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Generalizations are often useful, so I'm not one who often objects to them, but this sounds like a mischaracterization. I understand that many, perhaps most, of Ricochet's members and contributors have little experience with video games beyond Pac-Man and similar relics of the industry. So please allow me to offer some insight.
Yes, the game industry, much like Hollywood, is full of libertine products. Many immediately associate "violent video games" with Grand Theft Auto, which is indeed a work of immoral indulgence, though well-crafted.
But not all games are immoral or childish. Just as there are war films in which we root for heroes as they kill, there are admirable war games. This "Taliban" incident likely involved Medal of Honor, which our soldiers helped to produce. Games like that and Call of Duty have helped me to appreciate the dangerous situations that our soldiers face in ways which films cannot as strongly convey.
Anyway, not every act must be free, but freedom should include products which are not admirable.
Oct '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Aaron Miller
.
But not all games are immoral or childish. Just as there are war films in which we root for heroes as they kill, there are admirable war games. This "Taliban" incident likely involved Medal of Honor, which our soldiers helped to produce. Games like that and Call of Duty have helped me to appreciate the dangerous situations that our soldiers face in ways which films cannot as strongly convey.
Aaron:
We're not talking about the general population of American adults. This thread concerns selling excessively violent video games to kids.
But, by your logic: no effort can or should be made to limit the marketing and retailing of pornographic films to children because there are good and decent films available and because, as you said: "freedom should include products which are not admirable,"
I couldn't care less what kind of violent garbage is consumed by adults in video games. and neither should government.
Sep '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
"...on access to content that could be harmful"
There's the rub. Almost every study I have come across says the is no appreciable impact from playing these games. This is yet more evidence of the encroaching nanny state. This is a parenting issues and, as Nathaniel says, should be addressed by the market/local community. Everyone wants to poo-poo the slippery slope, but, I can't even see the top of the hill anymore.
May '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Herb, my point was that not all violent video games are likely to corrupt a child's development. War films and slasher flicks both involve violence, but one is acceptable for kids and one isn't. Likewise, some games involve violence under conditions of patriotism and honor while others involve shooting cops. There's a world of difference, and young boys were instinctively playing games of war long before video games were invented.
Pornography is different. Sure, there's a difference between a picture of a nude woman and a rape video, but all pornography has the same basic effect of encouraging kids to view people as impersonal objects for selfish pleasure.
In any case, my first post included what I consider the most important point: the market already restricts these games from sale to minors without need of laws. There are plenty of instances where retailers break those rules, but there's no reason to think a law would eliminate that rule-breaking any more than traffic laws prevent people from not wearing seatbelts.
By the way, modern video game consoles have parental controls, just like internet browsers.
Oct '10
Re: Your Child's Right to Buy Violent Video Games
Aaron: I agree completely. I never said or implied that all video games were excessively violent or otherwise unfit for children. We've got WII at our house. My grand-daughter learned how to count and add by playing video games.
However the topic of this thread and all my remarks are specific to those video games that are excessively and gratuitously violent and about whether children should be allowed to purchase such games without parental consent.