Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Your Rights Online

US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment 458

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the somebody-thought-of-the-children dept.
Wrath0fb0b writes "The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of "unworthy" material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds. In the process, they continue the broad rule that the First Amendment does not vary with the technological means used: 'Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary with a new and different communication medium.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment

Comments Filter:
  • by CokeBear (16811) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:01AM (#36584904) Journal

    Only Thomas and Breyer dissented; one of the most conservative, and one of the most liberal.

  • by ALeavitt (636946) <<aleavitt> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:30AM (#36585386)
    How can you call yourself a conservative while at the same time supporting expansion of government power over the lives and speech of citizens? I think it might be time for you to look up what defines a real conservative.
  • by Flyerman (1728812) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:44AM (#36585624) Journal

    You are correct, Tipper Gore is being referred to as "her"

  • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:57AM (#36585848)

    "As a fellow conservative, I must disagree. I see no problem with a state limiting what a minor may buy. Just a state may place limits on buying alcohol, pornography and cigarettes, I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games."

    One of the reasons Justice Scalia gave was that, historically, many children's books and stories were very violent. "Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said, there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

    A 7-2 split is pretty strong, even though two members of the majority made it sound like they'd support some sort of lesser restriction, that still puts it at 5-4 against any restrictions.

  • by ALeavitt (636946) <<aleavitt> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday June 27, 2011 @01:52PM (#36587504)
    States' rights countermand the constitution? That isn't in line with conservative ideals, that is in line with a dissolution of the federal government. Just give up trying to defend your ridiculous stance as bring ideologically in line with anything related to conseravtism and admit that you want the government to force everybody to abide by your morality. The simple fact of the matter is that the "liberty" that you most likely give lip service to but don't truly believe in means that other people are free to do things that you might not agree with.

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...