witness23
Veteran Expediter
Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children
November 02, 2010|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
Link: Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children - CNN
"Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who, under the control of the player, must confront everyday tasks. But it is how he handles these errands -- with the power to behead girls, shoot police, and urinate on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children
Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn November 02, 2010|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
"Postal 2," here in a screenshot, is part of a debate between free speech and consumer protection at the high court."Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who, under the control of the player, must confront everyday tasks. But it is how he handles these errands -- with the power to behead girls, shoot police, and urinate on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
The justices Tuesday appeared genuinely torn as they heard oral arguments in the appeal of a state law to regulate the sale of such material to minors.
Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the state would in effect be creating a "California Office of Censorship" to determine what is violent content.
"It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice," he said somewhat sarcastically. "Do we let government pass upon a board of censors? I don't think so."
In some games an underage player can "imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating violence upon small children and women -- and do this for an hour or so," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Why isn't it common sense to say a state has the right to tell parents -- if you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself?"
During the one-hour oral arguments, many on the high court appeared concerned the California law may have gone too far, but others suggested states might have some more narrow regulatory role when it comes to the sale of violent content.
Video game makers said the ban goes too far. They say the existing nationwide industry-imposed, voluntary ratings system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer games.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the industry has failed to do so.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
November 02, 2010|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
Link: Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children - CNN
"Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who, under the control of the player, must confront everyday tasks. But it is how he handles these errands -- with the power to behead girls, shoot police, and urinate on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children
Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn November 02, 2010|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
"Postal 2," here in a screenshot, is part of a debate between free speech and consumer protection at the high court."Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who, under the control of the player, must confront everyday tasks. But it is how he handles these errands -- with the power to behead girls, shoot police, and urinate on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
The justices Tuesday appeared genuinely torn as they heard oral arguments in the appeal of a state law to regulate the sale of such material to minors.
Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the state would in effect be creating a "California Office of Censorship" to determine what is violent content.
"It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice," he said somewhat sarcastically. "Do we let government pass upon a board of censors? I don't think so."
In some games an underage player can "imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating violence upon small children and women -- and do this for an hour or so," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Why isn't it common sense to say a state has the right to tell parents -- if you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself?"
During the one-hour oral arguments, many on the high court appeared concerned the California law may have gone too far, but others suggested states might have some more narrow regulatory role when it comes to the sale of violent content.
Video game makers said the ban goes too far. They say the existing nationwide industry-imposed, voluntary ratings system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer games.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the industry has failed to do so.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
Last edited by a moderator:
