• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged SCOTUS strikes down video game law

No surprise, the Illinois SC stuck down our law banning certain video game sales to minors several years ago on much the same grounds.
 
The way I saw it presented, that sounded more like a political move to gain vote, the authors fully knowing it would be struck down, rather than a law where everybody is surprised to see it struck down.
 
Here's the opinion. I gave it a skim because I'm a legal dork.

The Majority (written by Scalia) - Violence isn't doesn't meet obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, therefore the law is unconstitutional. The precedent continues: Boobs are more offensive than beheadings.

Alito's Concurring Opinion - Strikes down the law on vagueness grounds. He explicitly leaves the door open for similar laws in the future if they are worded more clearly.

Breyer's dissent - Is OK with the law because he thinks violent video games might be particularly dangerous to a child's upbringing. He includes an appendix with dozens of peer-reviewed articles for both sides of the argument.

Thomas's dissent - Is OK with law because he believes parents have an near absolute right to filter communication to their children. Talks a lot about Puritan history preceding the Constitution and the zeitgeist of the "founding generation". This man continues embarrass himself.
 
Last edited:
The aural arguments for that one were just hilarious. It was so obvious which way the court was going to go and there was the sense that they were just digging into the defending attorney for the fun of it. I'm actually surprised there was any dissent but then again it is Breyer and Thomas.

Actually, I personally agree that video games can have a greater effect on people's minds and emotions than any other media we have today. However I also know that the average age of video game players today is in their mid to late 30s. Video games are not for or aimed at children any more than movies or books are aimed at children. Video games should have the same freedom of speech rights as any other media.
 
Weak Kitten said:
The aural arguments for that one were just hilarious. It was so obvious which way the court was going to go and there was the sense that they were just digging into the defending attorney for the fun of it. I'm actually surprised there was any dissent but then again it is Breyer and Thomas.

Actually, I personally agree that video games can have a greater effect on people's minds and emotions than any other media we have today. However I also know that the average age of video game players today is in their mid to late 30s. Video games are not for or aimed at children any more than movies or books are aimed at children. Video games should have the same freedom of speech rights as any other media.
Click to expand...

But, unless i am mistaken movies, are restricted for people under a certain age as well.

As someone that has been " on the inside" of the ratings issue ( working in a video store for quite some time.) , i would like to clarify a concept.

The ratings, for all anyone's rantings, are there to protect the people selling movies and video games. You have no clue how many times you will see the parents of a 16 year old come into a store and rant because they were rented a film of the nature of " American Pie" due to the parents overprotective nature or beliefs.

Now, with ratings, the people selling them can say " Listen, i did not do anything illegal, there are ratings for the film, and your child is over the age of the rating. If you don't like that, i am not the person to take it up with, take it up with the agencies that decide the ratings. " without ratings , the only people it is going to effect are those selling the games/movies, who are now going to not have this cut and dry way of getting out of a one hour tirade by an overprotective parent.
 
sadhatter said:
But, unless i am mistaken movies, are restricted for people under a certain age as well.
Click to expand...

The ratings are determined by the MPAA not the federal government and the system is voluntary.

There is no 1st Amendment issue there because the Constitution does not apply to the acts of private organizations or citizens.
 
Last edited:
Merv's got it right. The rating system doesn't have to be governmental -- the store vender can still say "take it up with the ratings board" if the parent thinks the game should have been rated higher.

Stores can insist on ID or fail to stock mature games at all.

Basically the video game industry can deal with the content issue just fine without government intervention.
 
KingMerv00 said:
It pretty funny to see them together. Breyer and Thomas are diametrically opposed in their legal styles.
Click to expand...

Yes, but from your earlier post, they chose to dissent for diametrically opposed reasons.

This, to me shows that the majority is the happy medium, since both extremes find it equally unpalatable.
 
cwalner said:
Yes, but from your earlier post, they chose to dissent for diametrically opposed reasons.

This, to me shows that the majority is the happy medium, since both extremes find it equally unpalatable.
Click to expand...

Careful of the "fallacy of the middle ground", here. The existence of two strongly-held opposing views does not imply that something in the middle is correct.
 
The people who should care about the children are the parents. It's their job to limit what their kids do, not the government's.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Careful of the "fallacy of the middle ground", here. The existence of two strongly-held opposing views does not imply that something in the middle is correct.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course. In this case, though, I happen to agree with the ruling and I find both Beyer's and Thomas' dissents to be based more on ideology* than on law, and thus flawed.

I was trying to point out that we have an actual case where the happy medium does just happen to be the correct ruling (IMO)


*Even though Beyer's dissent included evidence to support that such laws protect children, I am not aware of any exception to the first amendment based on efficacy of results. I think Merv's paraphrase of Thomas' decision makes his ideological foundation for the decision quite clear and I see no need to add comment.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Careful of the "fallacy of the middle ground", here. The existence of two strongly-held opposing views does not imply that something in the middle is correct.
Click to expand...
Ummm.
By definition, in this particular case, the middle is correct.
Unless you know of a Higher Court in the US?
 
rwguinn said:
Ummm.
By definition, in this particular case, the middle is correct.
Unless you know of a Higher Court in the US?
Click to expand...

Depends how you define "correct" in this case. Legally, they are the only authority that matters (unless and until they get overruled by a later court or a constitutional amendment). Philosophically, there is still room for disagreement.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I don't really see a problem with legally restricting minors from purchasing "mature" material.
But I'll admit I'm not up on obscenity jurisprudence. The law just passes my personal "sniff" test in that it doesn't seem unreasonable to require parents to purchase games with content beyond the community's standards for children.
 
AvalonXQ said:
For the record, I don't really see a problem with legally restricting minors from purchasing "mature" material.
But I'll admit I'm not up on obscenity jurisprudence. The law just passes my personal "sniff" test in that it doesn't seem unreasonable to require parents to purchase games with content beyond the community's standards for children.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, the majority held that images of violence don't fall under obscenity, therefore the obscenity exception to the first amendment didn't apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom