Court to decide if CA. can regulate video games

[Jolie Rouge]

Free speech versus kids and violent video games
By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – 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.

The 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. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/...VydHRvZGVjaWQ-

[Advertisement]

[Jolie Rouge]

Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales
Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press – 14 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed. "No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.

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.

Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said. "Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there. "The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/...nt_video_games


comments

The question is, should the government be doing the parents jobs?

---

If you don't like violent games then don't buy them or play them. Same goes for violent music, movies, TV shows, comic books, etc. How hard can that possibly be?

If you really wanna live in a country where the government tells you what games you can play, what music you can listen to, what movies and TV shows you can see, or what books, magazines, or newspapers you can read, then I suggest you move to one of these places;

China
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Myanmar
Vietnam
Belarus
Cuba
Libya
Sudan
Syria
Equatorial Guinea

Of course none of these countries has ever been democratic, but I do know of at least ONE Western democracy that clamped down on its entertainment industry and media in general because its citizens valued security more than freedom, namely Germany in 1933.

---

Why do we need the government to do, yet another thing for us? it's called PARENTING, get involved. If a store is stupid enough to sell egregious material to minors, their parents should A.) find out, B.) go out of their bleeping way to put the place out of business. via public awareness, boycotting, etc.

Now, that said, I have no issue with it being relegated to behind the counter and out of direct handling by minors, kind of like porn, because, well, it's kind of like porn. Come on people, GET INVOLVED, don't let the government "Take care" of it, even meaning well, they will somehow F it up.

---

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep...but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

~~ C.S. Lewis

[Jolie Rouge]

No games are allowed in my house that are not "E" for everyone. Okay - one "M" : Pirates of the Caribean... but that is it.

[Jolie Rouge]

Nighttime or violent TV tied to tots' sleep woes
Lindsey Tanner, Ap Medical Writer – Mon Jun 27, 6:33 am ET

CHICAGO – If your preschooler can't sleep — turn off the violence and nighttime TV.

That's the message in a new study that found sleep problems are more common in 3- to 5-year-olds who watch television after 7 p.m. Watching shows with violence — including kids' cartoons — also was tied to sleeping difficulties.

Watching nonviolent shows during the day didn't seem to have any connection with sleep problems in the 617 youngsters studied.

The study builds on previous research linking media use with kids' sleep problems, and also bolsters arguments for limiting children's screen time.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time for children up to age 2, and no more than 2 hours daily for older children. It also urges pediatricians to ask parents at every checkup how much their children watch television, including whether kids have TVs in their bedrooms, which the academy discourages.

Previous studies have found that at least one in four U.S. preschoolers have TVs in their bedrooms, and many families mistakenly believe that watching TV will help their kids sleep, said Dr. Michelle Garrison, lead author and a scientist at Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute.

The government-funded study was released online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.

Overall, about 112 kids studied — nearly one in five — had one or more frequent sleep problems most days of the week. These included difficulty falling asleep, awakening repeatedly at night, nightmares, or daytime sleepiness.

Kids who watched the most nighttime or violent TV had the most sleep trouble. TV was the main source of screen time rather than computers or video games.

The study relied on parents' reports of kids' sleep difficulties and TV habits, and wasn't rigorous enough to tell whether TV caused sleep problems. It could be that poor sleepers might be more likely to watch TV; or family factors such as lax parenting could have been involved.

Experts said the theory that screen time causes sleep problems makes sense.

Dr. Dennis Rosen, a sleep medicine specialist at Children's Hospital Boston, said the research highlights a common problem.

"It certainly fits with what I see" at his sleep disorders clinic, Rosen said.

Young children go to sleep best with nighttime rituals that help calm them, including bedtime stories and cuddling with parents, said Dr. Marc Weissbluth, a sleep disorders specialist at Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital and author of several books on healthy sleep habits.

TV can have the opposite effect, stimulating children, and if it's replacing that down time with parents, it can be unhealthy, Weissbluth said.

While some preschoolers still nap during the day, sleepiness late in the day or early evening at this age is a sign that children need to go to bed earlier at night, he said.

Lack of sleep "is as dangerous as iron deficiency" and can cause behavior difficulties, memory problems and academic struggles, he said.

Some findings for the children studied:

• Daily screen time averaged about 73 minutes, with 14 minutes after 7 p.m.

• Children with bedroom TVs watched about 40 minutes more TV daily

• About 60 kids averaged an hour or more daily of violent TV; 37 percent had frequent sleep problems vs. 19 percent who saw little or no violence.

• Almost 100 kids averaged more than half an hour of nighttime TV; 28 percent had frequent sleep problems vs. 19 percent who watched little or no nighttime TV.

Banning all screen time for children may be unreasonable, but the study suggests that just eliminating nighttime or violent TV might have an impact, Garrison said.

___

Online:

American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/...d_tv_and_sleep

____


comments

I believe the problem is to much TV period.They need to be outside playing, running,throwing and hitting balls,digging holes, building forts, having fun and burning all that energy that makes children special. Guaranteed to help them sleep.

---

I watched Looney Toons all the time when I was a kid and slept fine; and you don't realize how ridiculously violent the Looney Toons were until you watch them when you're older. Good stuff.

---

really? letting your kids stay up late and watch tv might interfere with their sleep? good to see our tax dollars unraveling the mysteries of the universe.

---

This culture is obsessed with violence through video games, TV, Movies, Wars. Nature has a way of fixing that with people being exposed to so much sheer horror that it takes 1-2 generations before the next bunch of idiots thinks violence is exciting again. It's almost laughable how they have sex, deviant sex, violence galore but no curse words. Oh gee we can screw, chop, shoot and maim but no dirty words,,,,, dumb!

---

I watched the Twilight Zone coming up in my days and I never had sleep woes. The cartoons were funny, but what we have today is not cartoons, it's junk. I played with Rockem Sockem Robots back then and today it's playstation and throwing grenades and blowing up people. Big difference from the Pink Panther and Road Runner.

---

I was raised watching half hour tv westerns every night, variety shows like Ed Sullivan. My father and I would sing the theme songs of each program together until bedtime. Back then scary tv was on after 10pm. TV didn't run 24hours a day. It came on about 5am with the farm report and the national anthem. It shut off about 1am. Now I don't know how people aren't driven nuts with all the loud nonsense on tv. It's a wonder kids can sleep at all. They can't unwind with all the stimuli surrounding them.

---

Are they sure its not those dumb brain cell killing "reality" shows that are so famous nowadays?

[Jolie Rouge]

Free-Speech Rulings : Violent Video Games vs. Sexual Images
Time.com – 24 mins ago

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a California ban on selling or renting violent video games to minors. The ruling was an important win for free speech, as the court said that violent video games, not matter how objectionable, are works of art in their own right. But the ruling also raised an intriguing question: Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?

The court's 7-2 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was a firm rejection of the idea that there could be an exception to the First Amendment for extremely violent pictures and graphics. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it does not matter how "disgusting" video games are because they are still protected speech. (See "Violent Video Games: The Top 8 Big-Money Franchises.")

The images are, in fact, often wildly violent and gory. In the game Postal II, players (you guessed it) "go postal" by, among other things, attacking schoolgirls with shovels and decapitating them.

What's more, experts predict that the violence could soon become even more extreme. We are probably not far off from mass-marketed violent video games in 3-D and games that allow players to get sensory feedback from their simulated violent actions. Justice Samuel Alito noted in a concurring opinion that the day may come when "virtual reality shoot-'em-ups will allow children to actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head of a victim."

Critics of violent video games cite scientific research suggesting that children who play them may become more aggressive in real life. But the majority on the court insisted that even if video games are harmful - and the research is far from conclusive - that fact would not justify the law. "Perhaps they do present a problem," Scalia said, but there are "all sorts of 'problems' ... that cannot be addressed by government restrictions on free expression." The industry self-polices with a ratings system, like the movie industry's, but it is voluntary.

It is no great surprise that the court refused to accept a state ban on violent video games - even one limited to minors. Last year, in the case of United States v. Stevens, the court had a chance to rule that videos showing extreme cruelty to animals - including ones showing puppies being crushed to death by women in stiletto heels - are not protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the court struck down a federal law banning animal-cruelty videos.

This is classic First Amendment doctrine - even the speech we abhor is protected, even speech the government believes could have negative effects on its audience must be allowed.

The question, however, is why the court does not take this same absolutist approach to speech involving sexual images. In regard to sex, the court has carved out an exception to traditional First Amendment protections.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two dissenters in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, pointed out the court's double standard. "What sense does it make," he asked, "to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

What sense, indeed. Breyer went further: "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"

Another fine question. Breyer pointed out the inconsistency in order to defend the California law. He would have ruled that the video-game ban is constitutional - just as some laws against selling obscenity have been upheld.

But Justice Breyer's logic could lead in the opposite direction: instead of saying the court should be more accepting of bans on violent speech, it could mean that to be consistent, the court should be more skeptical about bans on sexual images. (The court's tougher line on sex parallels the movie industry's voluntary ratings system, which is much quicker to give a rare NC-17 rating for sex than for violence - but the industry has not done much to explain its double standard, either.)

Is the court more accepting of limits on sexual images because they are inherently more offensive than violent images? As Breyer asks, do we really believe that a game that allows a child to torture and kill a woman becomes offensive only when she is showing her breasts?

Is it because sexual images are more harmful to young people than violent images? Supporters of the California law submitted research showing that violent video games may well be making young people more aggressive and that they can cause "long-term harmful outcomes." Is the evidence of harm from exposure to sexual imagery stronger? (Child-pornography laws are another matter entirely; the harm they aim at is much clearer.)

Even if the court's ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association does not make it abandon its approach to sexual speech and images, it might cause the court to rethink it.

Also on Monday, the court announced that it would hear arguments in a challenge to the FCC's indecency rules for broadcast television, including its heavy fines for airing "fleeting expletives." The FCC has been fine-happy in the past: it imposed a $550,000 penalty on CBS for the "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that revealed Janet Jackson's breast. The lower courts have ruled against the FCC, but the Supreme Court reversed them the last time in this case - and may well again.

It may be that the First Amendment prevents California from stopping children from buying video games in which they can decapitate schoolgirls and torture women. It may also be that it allows the FCC to impose heavy fines on television stations that air four-letter words and other "indecent" speech.

But if the court is going to continue to act as if the nation were the Wild West when it comes to violence and Puritan New England when it comes to sex, it should do more - as Justice Breyer rightly suggested - to explain why.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-double...160202950.html

[Jolie Rouge]

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-double...160202950.html

comments

Hasn't the Supreme Court routinely struggled by defining the line between "art" and "pornography"? What is to separate images of the nude body, expressed in one sense, artistically, and one exploitatively? "I'll know when I see it" is not a definitive enough answer, but the best we can hope for. Luckily, the violence in games these days is tame enough to warrant a blanket warning regarding content. This question will come up again, and First Amendment will win again. The game industry is one of the best self-regulated businesses around; it's parents that need to start assuming some responsibility.

----

No mention of parental oversight of kids-where are the parents? Its their home, their child, their responsibility. Nudist families see adults nude... parental oversight in action..Think about it !

----

Personally, I'd rather have to explain nudity (and even sex) to my children than to have to explain the increasingly violent and sadistic story lines in most of the TV shows like CSI.

----

Um...I don't mind playing a violent video game now-and-again (not the ones where you decapitate school girls), but did anyone else find it rather ridiculous that they believe VR will allow us to feel blood splattering on our faces? Who the hell would want that?

---

To play Devil's Advocate, a "nudie" magazine depicts real women, a video game does not.

Regardless, I think it should be up to the parents to determine what is best for their children, not the government.

----

This has absolutly nothing to do with free speach, they are just advancing the intrestes of a billion dollar business. I bet years on down the line someone will discover quite a trail of money leading to the judgements of the scotus.

---

Justice Bryer is right, this is a double standard now.

You can make the argument that you should censor both violent video games and adult entertainment. You can make the opposite argument that both are protected by the First Ammendment.

The argument falls apart however when you allow violent video games to be protected but you will not allow images of consenting adults engaged in sexual activity to be protected.

One may argue that exposing a person to porn may make them engage in anti-social behavior, like rape. But if that is true than you should also not allow a videogame a free ride to show whatever violent fantasy the programers want.

Personally I come down on the side of the First Ammendment protection for both. But as a future parent I will also not allow my kids to be exposed to either.

---

Justice Bryer is right, this is a double standard now.

You can make the argument that you should censor both violent video games and adult entertainment. You can make the opposite argument that both are protected by the First Ammendment.

The argument falls apart however when you allow violent video games to be protected but you will not allow images of consenting adults engaged in sexual activity to be protected.

One may argue that exposing a person to porn may make them engage in anti-social behavior, like rape. But if that is true than you should also not allow a videogame a free ride to show whatever violent fantasy the programers want.

Personally I come down on the side of the First Ammendment protection for both. But as a future parent I will also not allow my kids to be exposed to either.

---

Sex is reality and about privacy. That's why kids can't buy it. Video games are not reality and, in fact, are cartoons. Ban video games for their violence and you have to ban Road Runner and The Coyote, Foghorn Leghorn getting wacked by the Chicken Hawk, Yosemite Sam getting blown up by Bugs Bunny and lots more.

Here's a concept -- how about parents learn what their kids are doing and ban violent video games themselves? No, too much self-responsibility.

----

The point brought up in the article hits the nail on the head. I actually saw a real life example of this back in the late 90s... when I went to watch the movie "Starship Troopers" which is an extremely violent and gory movie... decapitations, amputations, etc... in the movie theater, sitting in front of me was a family: a father, a mother, and a son - maybe in late elementary school. The parents had no problems having their child watch when peoples limbs were being hacked off, people impaled, heads being blown off, etc... and then it came to the shower scene... which if you haven't watched the movie, is a coed shower scene where both men and women are nude with no hint any sexuality... they averted their kids eyes. Also during the "love" scene, same thing... getting their kid to not watch. There is something more than slightly wrong where it's ok to see an alien spiked appendage pierce the top of a person and sucking out their brains but there is a problem seeing a naked body...

---

I would rather have my child look at a playboy/playgirl then play a violent video game where women or children are tied up, tortured and then killed.