154
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.
Video games are addictive activities targeted at teenagers{{Citation needed}}, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Certain genres of games are becoming increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> After a ''Conservapedian'' filed an [[amicus brief]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider this issue, it surprised [[liberal]]s by granting ''[[certiorari]]''.
Video games are addictive activities targeted at teenagers{{Citation needed}}, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Certain genres of games are becoming increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> After a ''Conservapedian'' filed an [[amicus brief]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider this issue, it surprised [[liberal]]s by granting ''[[certiorari]]''.
However, in 2011, the Supreme Court denied a ban on the sale of violent video games in California, claiming they were protected as they "qualify for First Amendment Protection" and pointing out that there has historically been no shortage of violent imagery in children's fairytales, classical literature, and comics. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia pointed out that "disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression", and continued that any effects of violent video games on children "are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media".<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.]</ref>
It has also been suggested that it is the role of parents to regulate what their children play, and that laws restricting video game vendors are an effort to replace parents' decisions with the government's decisions.<ref> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45083/ </ref> <ref> http://www.gameculture.com/2010/11/10/editorial-parental-responsibility-and-today039s-media </ref> <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-games28-2009feb28,0,1556900.story </ref>
It has also been suggested that it is the role of parents to regulate what their children play, and that laws restricting video game vendors are an effort to replace parents' decisions with the government's decisions.<ref> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45083/ </ref> <ref> http://www.gameculture.com/2010/11/10/editorial-parental-responsibility-and-today039s-media </ref> <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-games28-2009feb28,0,1556900.story </ref>