   ECA Petitioning Violent Game Case
  Thought I'd throw this out to the community.ECA Petitioning Violent Game Case - Gamers asked to submit signatures for U.S. Supreme Court hearing.Link to petition
  Isn't the law designed to treat Adult content in video games like other Adult content, and ban its sale to minors?People seriously have a problem with a law like this? Why aren't these people also fighting to ensure 6 year olds can walk into a store and pick up a bottle of Rum, a carton of cigarettes, and the latest copy of playboy to go with their new copy of GTA?[Edited by - Talroth on May 13, 2010 4:29:03 PM];  Um.. is the petition to allow minors to buy violent games? If so I can't say I agree with that.   ;  This has been discussed elsewhere on the forums before.  Google for earlier discussion.The petition itself is actually rather pathetic.  The ECA Petition reads:Quote:We, the undersigned American video game consumers, purchase, rent and play video games the way we do other entertainment content such as movies and music. We respectfully request that you hold that video games are indeed free speech, protected under the First Amendment, like other entertainment media.That is completely different than the legal challenge before the court.In fact, BOTH sides agree that they should be protected exactly the same as other entertainment media.So their petition and their amicus brief are well intentioned but completely irrelevant.The difficulty IS NOT that they want them to be treated the same as other media.The difficulty IS the definitions in the "Miller test".The Miller Test is relatively new.  Before the test, extreme violence was included as non-protected speech.  After the test, it was not included.  The new law wants a very slight extension to the existing Miller test: It copies the Miller test exactly in regards to "prurient interests", but it goes one step farther with the inclusion of "morbid" interests.In more common terms:  The existing test covers "prurient", or completely sexual, content.  The new law wants to include completely "morbid", or completely gruesome or violent, content.  Just like we currently allow a certain level of sex in films, games, and books, the law wants to restrict publicly available content to similar levels of violence.  We can still have violence, just not obscenely gruesome levels.The new law is too lax on definition, so it will likely be overturned by the court.  But either this suit, or another one of the many similar cases currently coming through the appeals process, will almost certainly result in a modification to the Miller test to include extreme violence.   ;Quote:Original post by TalrothPeople seriously have a problem with a law like this?This law would make it illegal to sell a violent video game to a minor, but not a violent a comic book, a movie or a magazine.  It would still be perfectly legal for a child to purchase a ticket to see an extremely violent movie, like 300, but illegal for them to purchase the video game 300.  This is different than the other things you listed, because a child is not allowed to purchase pornographic images, alcohol or tobacco in one form, but not another.The history of comics during the Comic Code as a perfect example of why people who create games should be very worried. quick article;Quote:Original post by TalrothIsn't the law designed to treat Adult content in video games like other Adult content, and ban its sale to minors?People seriously have a problem with a law like this? Why aren't these people also fighting to insure 6 year olds can walk into a store and pick up a bottle of Rum, a carton of cigarettes, and the latest copy of playboy to go with their new copy of GTA?Pretty outlandish to compare drugs to media... and even if that stuff wasn't law do you really think store policy would allow such a purchase to a 6 year old?------Right now, video games are following the status quo.  Violent Movies, books, magazines, etc are blocked from sale via company policy, not law (except in isolated areas).  Introducing this into law is a waste of money and time since it'll now be forced/mandated by police instead of parents and shopkeepers.;Quote:Original post by necreiaQuote:Original post by TalrothIsn't the law designed to treat Adult content in video games like other Adult content, and ban its sale to minors?People seriously have a problem with a law like this? Why aren't these people also fighting to insure 6 year olds can walk into a store and pick up a bottle of Rum, a carton of cigarettes, and the latest copy of playboy to go with their new copy of GTA?Pretty outlandish to compare drugs to media... and even if that stuff wasn't law do you really think store policy would allow such a purchase to a 6 year old?Not really. It was decided that some things in the US should be for adults only, and therefore the access to such things by minors are restricted. As for "Store Policy", generally it is store policy to NOT sell M rated games to under aged kids, but some stores still do it. Do you honestly believe that if it wasn't illegal that at least SOME store owners would happily sell a 6 year old rum, smokes, and porn? "It isn't illegal, and not my problem" is what their line likely would be. Quote:Right now, video games are following the status quo.  Violent Movies, books, magazines, etc are blocked from sale via company policy, not law (except in isolated areas).  Introducing this into law is a waste of money and time since it'll now be forced/mandated by police instead of parents and shopkeepers.So, this law does nothing but backup the status quo, and insure all stores are playing by the same rules? Where is the problem with that?   ;Quote:Quote:Right now, video games are following the status quo.  Violent Movies, books, magazines, etc are blocked from sale via company policy, not law (except in isolated areas).  Introducing this into law is a waste of money and time since it'll now be forced/mandated by police instead of parents and shopkeepers.So, this law does nothing but backup the status quo, and insure all stores are playing by the same rules? Where is the problem with that?There is a difference between the status quo -- something that people are voluntarily doing -- and the law -- which is enforced by serious penalties.The US Constitution is very clear on the matter that no law shall abridge the freedom of speech.  There are only a few areas that are not protected by the freedom of speech:  Speech that presents a clear an present danger; libel/slander; limited time/place/manner restrictions; and obscenity.The restriction on clear and present danger covers things like shouting "Fire!" in a crowd, encouraging violence in an already tense situation, death threats, and so on.  Child porn is included here, because it is an obvious danger to children.  These laws are allowed, but only if they are very careful in defining a clear and present danger.The libel/slander exemption covers intentional lies.  Speech is protected if you know or believe it to be the truth.  Your speech is not protected if you know it to be a lie.  Libel, slander, and fraud fit this exemption.Time/Place/Manner restrictions cover most civil issues.  It includes limits on the noise in residential areas at night.  It includes limits on political campaigning next to polling places.  It includes limits on restricting protesting so it doesn't interfere with events.  Note that the freedom of speech is still permitted, but only insofar as the rights of others are also preserved.Finally, there is the obscenity restriction.  This is the restriction being discussed.Other than that, everything is voluntary.  It is not enforced by law.  It is not enforced by civil or criminal penalties.  And that is a good thing.   ;  Personally I feel that laws limiting children's access to such material goes a long way in protecting them. Yes, the parent still has the choice, but if you need to be 18 to buy a game with a given level of violence, gore, strong language, mature subject matter, and sexual elements, then it means little billy can't take his allowance/lunch money and skip down to the store during school lunch hour and pick up the latest copy of Hooker-Beaters from the clerk that doesn't give a damn.If the parent really wants their kid to have it, then the parent can buy it for them.   ;Quote:Original post by TalrothAs for "Store Policy", generally it is store policy to NOT sell M rated games to under aged kids, but some stores still do it. Do you honestly believe that if it wasn't illegal that at least SOME store owners would happily sell a 6 year old rum, smokes, and porn? "It isn't illegal, and not my problem" is what their line likely would be. On some level it's a question of what you choose to use as a comparison. Yes, sale of alcohol, cigarettes and pornography is regulated by law. But that child can get into an R-rated movie just fine - company policy is all that is stopping the sale. Are you contending that a "violent" video game is so much more dangerous than a violent film that we require a law to prevent the direct dissemination of the former to children but not the latter?Keep in mind that laws can never be unmade, only superseded/countermanded, and as such I hold the opinion that laws should be introduced carefully.Quote:So, this law does nothing but backup the status quo, and insure all stores are playing by the same rules? ... Where is the problem with that?Pet peeve: ensure. This has nothing to do with insurance. (Yet.)The problem with a law that backs up the status quo is that it now requires enforcement, prosecution for violators, and penalties for those convicted. It introduces substantial overhead and expands government. So unless there is a real need to enforce said status quo - say, because the consequences of violation are incredibly high (murder when someone violates the "don't kill people" status quo) - it is a good idea to simply stick with social norm rather than military-backed law.Quote:Original post by TalrothPersonally I feel that laws limiting children's access to such material goes a long way in protecting them.No, it just criminalizes violators. The existence of laws restricting sale of alcohol, tobacco and pornography which you cite repeatedly hasn't actually stopped children from getting them, ever. The societal response then shifts from addressing the core issue/problem, which is "Why do they feel the need to consume these things?", to the far less impactful "Who did they get it from, and how do we make them pay?"   