It's official - the Supreme Court said states cannot ban the sale or rental of ultraviolent video games to children. Seriously, what kind of future can your child have if they can't get good at Grand Theft Auto IV?On a 7-2 vote, the court threw out California's 2005 law covering games sold or rented to those under 18, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free-speech rights.
"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 the 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?" Well, maybe you should read Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion!
He said that video games, fall into the same category as books, plays and movies as entertainment that "communicates ideas — and even social messages" deserving of First Amendment free-speech protection. And non-obscene speech "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply."
This decision was the latest in a series of rulings on on First Amendment cases, with the justices throwing out attempts to ban animal cruelty videos, protests at military funerals and political speech by businesses.
If California's 2005 law was upheld, it would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." What, do they want everyone to go back to playing only Pac-Man? Under that model, even Mike Tyson's Punch Out would be covered - an he doesn't even bite any ears in that game! Parents would have been able to buy the prohibited games for their children, but retailers who sold directly to minors would have faced fines of up to $1,000 for each game sold.
Thankfully, the law never took effect, as lower courts have said that the law violated minors' constitutional rights, and the state lacked enough evidence to prove that violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors (like when David Cross asked what those video games where that Hitler gave to the Germans). Courts in six other states reached the same conclusion in striking down similar bans.
So rejoice, children! You may not get to see a tit in real life, but at least you can play a game where you cut them off someone...
Thankfully, the law never took effect, as lower courts have said that the law violated minors' constitutional rights, and the state lacked enough evidence to prove that violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors (like when David Cross asked what those video games where that Hitler gave to the Germans). Courts in six other states reached the same conclusion in striking down similar bans.
So rejoice, children! You may not get to see a tit in real life, but at least you can play a game where you cut them off someone...
No comments:
Post a Comment