The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case this year. This case deals with video games and how they relate to the rights ensured in the First Amendment.
If they agree with what the lower courts have decreed, video games would continue to be considered protected under the first amendment rights of free speech and protected speech, just like books, movies and music. If they disagreed, they would be considered special. This would open the door to laws and bills curtailing access to certain video games in certain states. [source]
Apparently, the case is based on an argument deciding whether a particular law passed in California violates the First Amendment. The law decreed that certain video games depicted particularly brutal, cruel, or heinous violence would be restricted to those over the age of eighteen. The California Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. [source]
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. I mean, admittedly, it is restricting distribution of these video games to my friends, who are the people who play them most. Young people. But on the other hand, if your under seventeen, you can't watch that sort of violence in a movie theater without parental consent, it is restricted to you. Sex in the media is restricted until you are eighteen. Why should the same standards not be held for video games? My sister was exposed to extreme video game violence in Grand Theft Auto at the age of ten. Is this sort of thing healthy for kids? Then again, I despise most forms of censorship.
Give me your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment