“Supreme Court to decide if kids can buy violent video games” plus 3 more |
- Supreme Court to decide if kids can buy violent video games
- Free speech versus kids and violent video games
- Is it OK for kids to buy violent video games?
- Free speech versus kids and violent video games
| Supreme Court to decide if kids can buy violent video games Posted: 26 Apr 2010 03:27 PM PDT WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a California ban on the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional. In 2005, California approved a law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to children under the age of 18, and ordered game makers to post explicit warnings on such games. The law was quickly challenged, and was overturned by a lower federal court and again on appeal in February 2009 on grounds that it restricted freedom of expression. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has now appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which next month will take up the case, known as "Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association." The law defines a violent video game as one that depicts "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," though it does not prevent a parent or guardian from purchasing the game for their child. In their submission to the court, attorneys for the state of California said the ban was based on medical and sociological studies that "establish a correlation between violent video game play and increased automatic aggressiveness, aggressive thoughts and behavior, antisocial behavior, and desensitization to violence in minors and adults." At least nine other states and localities have enacted similar restrictions, including Washington, Minnesota and Illinois. In California, retailers are subject to 1,000 dollars in fines for each violation. The Video Software Dealers Association, which brought the case before the Supreme Court, argues that minors should have the same access to potentially violent video games as they currently do to movies or books with similarly graphic content. The closely watched free-speech case is expected to be among the first heard by the newest Supreme Court justice who is expected to join the court by the start of the new term in October, replacing retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court cited free speech protections in overturning a law banning images of animal cruelty, reversing a sentence against a man who sold videos of pitbull dog fights that he had not himself organized. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Free speech versus kids and violent video games Posted: 26 Apr 2010 07:35 PM PDT The Supreme Court will decide whether free-speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children. The justices agreed Monday to consider reinstating California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said he was pleased the high court would review the appeals court decision. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," said Schwarzenegger, who starred in the "Terminator" movies before becoming governor. The judge who wrote the decision overturning the law said there was no research showing a connection between violent video games and psychological harm to young people. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes a week after the high court voted to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free-speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue. California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games — those that include "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" — to anyone under 18. | The Associated Press Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Is it OK for kids to buy violent video games? Posted: 26 Apr 2010 04:52 PM PDT  Photo by The Associated Press
The law prohibits the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under 18. Video games that fell under the ban were to labeled with an "18″ and retailers could face fines of $1,000 per violation. Members of the then-Video Software Dealers Association went to court. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's Attorney General Jerry Brown appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court after the law was overturned in 2007 and subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court last year. According to GamePolitics.com this would be first time the nation's top court has considered a video game issue. Oh, boy. The California law was passed partly because of studies that suggested a link between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior. But the judge who overturned the law said there was no proof of that. It's freedom of speech versus whether it's legal for a state to keep what it considers harmful material out of a child's hands. Here's how the attorney general's office framed the issue in a press release on the Supreme Court's willingness to consider California's appeal:
So moms, what do you think? How should the Supreme Court rule? Is the state overstepping its bounds? Is this something that parents can police for themselves, thank you very much? In general, do adults overreact to the impact of violent video games? Do you think it is OK for kids to rent, buy and play so-called violent video games? And how would you define what's a violent video game — where do you draw the line between harmless cartoon violence (if there is such a thing) and violence that can harm impressionable young psyches? I know I'm asking a lot of questions. But it's a tricky issue. When my son got older, in his mid-teens, I let him play many of these games that he would not have been allowed to rent under the law at question. While there are times when I question his sanity (like four or five times a day), he hasn't killed anybody yet. I kind of see those games as a way for him to let out some of his male hormonally-driven aggression. He was too small for football. But it wouldn't have bothered me if he couldn't rent or buy them on his own until he was 18. Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Free speech versus kids and violent video games Posted: 27 Apr 2010 12:14 AM PDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children. The justices agreed Monday to consider reinstating California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said he was pleased the high court would review the appeals court decision. He said, "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies." However, the judge who wrote the decision overturning the law said at the time that there was no research showing a connection between violent video games and psychological harm to young people. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue. California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games — those that include "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" — to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act could have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation. Lawyer Stephen S. Smith, who has represented several video game companies in court, said the Supreme Court may use this case to explain how far lawmakers can go when trying to regulate depictions of violence. "There is a fair amount of First Amendment law in the area of sexual explicitness and obscenity," he said. "But there is not nearly as much law on the issue of violence and what may be restricted or not under the First Amendment in that arena." The California law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns. Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says are played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution. But supporters of the law note that the Supreme Court has upheld laws keeping minors from buying or having access to pornography, alcohol and tobacco. And the California law does not ban parents from purchasing or buying the video games for their children. Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos. Given last week's ruling on videos showing animal cruelty, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said. Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If the justices thought that, he said, they would not be reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban. "Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat. California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research. "None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling. Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing games designed for adults. But courts in other states have struck down similar laws. The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material on the grounds of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling. The court will hear arguments in this case in the fall. The case is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448.
Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for kids games To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment