Supreme Court Has Ruled; Now Games Have a Duty
- Thread starter busenbust
- Start date
Here is an interesting thing that came to mind when I first heard of this decision & upon what grounds it was reached. If a ban on sales of violent games to children is a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the children.....what about pornography? :dunno: Using the reasoning in this case, it doesn't seem too far a stretch to argue that any ban on the sale of pornography to children would also be a violation of their 1st amendment rights. I'm not saying that I am an advocate of selling porn to children...I'm just saying that the same reasoning used concerning the sale of violent video games could logically apply to the sale of pornography, or basically anything else as well. :2 cents: I guess, in short, what I am saying is that perhaps they have opened a Pandora's Box.
I have to agree. Based on this decision, it can be interpreted that the MPAA ratings system violates the 1st amendment and essentially, kids can go to the movie theater and watch whatever they damn well please. Also, I've seen beer commercials where the company refers to their brewing process as "Art", so what's to stop them from using the same argument that kids should be allowed to drink their product.
Sometimes, the courts can hand down some truly moronic decisions, but this one sits at the top of the stupid pile.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Look who is on the "Supreme" Court. You have your answer. :hatsoff:
Anyway, this is up to the parents not the "state" and not the "federal government."
Ummm...but children aren't allowed to go to a movie theater and watch whatever they want. It's been well established since this country's founding that children don't and shouldn't have all the same rights that adults have, and they often don't. The line has to be drawn somewhere though, and somebody will always be upset at where it's set and what children should and should not be able to get a hold of. The differences are more matters of opinion and maybe not as much a legal difference. It gets harder when considering different mediums. A lot of people that complain about violent video games probably don't care as much about books with just print.
Still that shouldn't somehow prevent video games from being considered an art form which they rightfully are.
But remember, TECHNICALLY the MPAA ratings are a voluntary thing created by the industry itself....in an effort to stave off pressure from the government at the time. Soooo, as a matter of law, children can view whatever they want basically. I'm not actually sure when it comes to pornography though (I'm assuming most States have laws concerning porn and children viewing it).
I take it you LOVE the conservative majority, since, without their support, this decision could never have been reached. :dunno:
I take it you LOVE the conservative majority, since, without their support, this decision could never have been reached. :dunno:
There are so many video games that are actually like art. They are beautiful and expressive... Geometry Wars, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect, Braid, Spore, Minecraft, Fable, Ico, DeBlob, Legend of Zelda, LittleBigPlanet, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, Limbo, the list goes on and on. Just because games like Grand Theft Auto and Gears of War are misrepresented in the news, doesn't mean that every game is a violent, gore filled shooter, there are games that take pride in their visual and art styles, humor, and story.
I think you missed my point. If video games are considered art, then movies must also be considered art, and based on the ruling handed down, the logical interpretation is this, if you can't prohibit minors from buying violent/suggestive video games, then you can't stop them from watching movies with the same content.
You are right in that the line must be drawn, but the problem is, they crossed the line with this ruling. At the very least, it sets a confusing double-standard, but in my opinion, it's downright stupid.
Maybe, then again maybe it could be argued that if anything it was too restrictive before. Maybe this isn't going to far because it's giving people freedom as much as it was being too restrictive before.
Other countries have a lot less restrictions on what is shown, often on airwaves that the general public can pick up not just in the theater. The sky didn't seem to fall for them because of it and a lot of them laugh at us for the way we operate over here.
I could also point out that the court is, when it's operating like it should, suppose to make what it feels the is the right decision that upholds the law and the constitution, and not just what is the popular decision. It's also not it's job to set, make, or create what it feels to be good policy. (Now the court often fails to do that and does meddle in things better left to lawmakers or they go with their emotions over the intent of the constitution, but they can't be blamed when they don't.) Just because something is a good idea also doesn't mean they make a decision based off of it. That's not supposed to be their jobs. They supposed to enforce the laws.
Using commons sense and closing loopholes might be one thing, but engaging in social engineering because they think it's the right thing to do is another.
Part of the probably stems from our very history. In the early history of the United States, most of the people who immigrated here, did so to escape religious persecution. As such, religion became engrained into our society much more so than other countries. Thankfully, the founding fathers didn't establish a national religion, or we'd probably be no better than a middle-eastern country that bases everything on Islam. Still, religion influenced daily decisions on many things, including law. To some degree, it still does. I do think you're right, a number of European countries find it laughable how we restrict what we put on TV and radio. In this case, I think a few judges may have been influenced by Alzheimer's.
Similar threads
