We're certainly ending the semester with some intense topics, huh?
I think that we see our First Amendment traditions and values tested by the arguments for and against free expression on the Internet. As a newer technology, there isn't as much case law to figure out how the law will treat obscenity cases involving the Internet, so we have to look to older cases, such as Miller v. California and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and more recent ones, such as Reno v. ACLU and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, to try to figure out how things might turn out.
As we saw with today's class discussions, these are challenging topics that are controversial and difficult to discuss.
But I think they serve as a fitting wrap-up to a lot of what we've been talking about all semester when it comes to the First Amendment.
Here are some links for you to check out. Click here for the website for the Federal Communications Commission.
Skim through the "Obscenity/Indecency" link on the left side of the homepage (look under the Consumer Center) and you'll see echoes of what we've discussed in class.
They are working on a "reboot" -- a re-designed website to look more modern and user-friendly. Check it out. Is it better?
Also, here's a link to a news story about the violent video games case that the court is currently considering, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
After you read that article, return here and post your comments. How do you think the U.S. Supreme Court will rule? Who do you think will prevail, and why?
20 comments:
I think that the FCC site is pretty boring. We looked at it in class today, and you even said it's not really stream lined and it's a bit of a bore. However, I'm glad they are reaching out to people and want people's opinions and encourage people to create a "model of excellence in government."
As far as the Supreme Court case..this is a difficult subject. The case discussed considering violence as "unprotected speech," and it's tough to create new categories of unprotected speech, as the article talks about.
I think that one of the interesting points of the case is when a justice brought up the Grimm's fairy tales being censored. I think that the Court won't change the already set categories of unprotected speech. It's hard to know where to draw the line as far as regulation, but I hope that people see the many sides to this equation.
Megan Moede
9:30 T/TH
I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of california, but by a small majority. I believe that it will be like a 5-4 vote in favor of California. With all the things that have happened over the years with minors performing violent acts they have learned from media outlets, it will be a very hard case for EMA to prove. The distinction between video games and movies is an easy one to make but not necessarily a valid point. Minors arent allowed to purchase rated R movies in many states, and a movie can be rated R for violence, sex, etc. Not allowing minors to buy violent video games will not keep them from owning them, it will only give the power to parents to decide if it is appropriate for them to have. I"m not even really sure why the EMA is suing, are they intentionally marketing to minors?
Kaitlin W.
T-TH 9:30
I personally don't understand why this case is being heard by the Supreme Court. Movies have had the MPAA rating system in place since the late 1960s; how are video games any different? While radio stations and television (news segments) are generally broadcast live, movies and video games are constructed with due time to give a proper rating. If the parents have a problem with their children being denied a violent video game, they can purchase it themselves. Schwarzenegger's Assembly Bill 1179 is designed to prevent minors from the exposure to violence through video games, and while I don't necessarily believe it will cause every child to act in a violent nature, I wouldn't want my child's mind being tainted without my consent. If children are grown-up enough to buy an MA-rated video game, then shouldn't they be able to pick up a case of beer on their way home from school? Basic restrictions are established for the American good; besides, if a child really wants a violent video game (or a case of beer), she/he will find someone to purchase it for them.
The old FCC site is pretty boring and it also is very cluttered. The new format is definitely less cluttered and looks like it would be easier to navigate.
I do not think the government should be able to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors because there are already plenty of restrictions and warnings in place. I think the rating system is sufficient enough to warn parents and customers of the content of the video game. I do not think that there is a big correlation between playing violent video games and actually committing violent acts. I have plenty of friends who play violent video games, but they do not act out what they see or do in these games. I agree with Justice Scalia. If the government is allowed to put legal restriction on video games, what is next? Violence is omnipresent in media today and I think it is impossible to shield minors from violence altogether. If the legal restrictions on violent video games are put in place, I do not think it will deter minors from playing violent video games, rather it will simply make it harder for minors to purchase them.
First of all, I'll say that the FCC's “reboot” website is definitely an improvement from the 90s-looking website they have currently. It looks like it was created the same time as the internet...
As for the Schwarzenegger video games case, I don't think it should be a government issue, honestly. Why does there need to be a law aiding parents in restricting children's access to violence? That's a parent's decision. Or it should be. And if Justice Breyer's suggestion that parent's may need help because they're not home when their children come home from school, maybe that's their problem. A law doesn't need to be put into place because parents don't know how to watch what their kids are up to and what games they're playing, movies/television they're watching, etc.
Basically, some kids can handle the violent games, and some can't. That should be a parent's place to decide though.
Video games are not intended to be reality, and I think many of the kids who play them know this. Justice Scalia makes a good point: what's next if you ban violent video game access to children? Where is the line drawn? Parents need to learn to be parents. The ones that get worked up over a violent video game, or smoking in a movie, rather than taking some responsibility for their kids...I don't get it. Just because they can't handle the questionable items, or their own child can't handle them, they think no one should be able to access them? It's like banning books to me. It's attempting to censor, and I don't think that's right.
I think that people get over-sensitive and try to get things banned just because they themselves don't like it, or just as an attempt to not offend anyone. Sorry, but they need to get over it. I hope the court does not pass the law. It's not going to limit access to the games anyway—just because they won't be able to purchase them themselves, doesn't mean they won't be able to find other ways...so why bother? There are rating systems already in place. Let the parents decide for their kids.
shannyn b.
TTh 9:30am
The FCC site is pretty lame, but the beta version of the new site looks decent. I think under the "Obscenity/Indecency" link, the FCC should actually give a definition for these terms.
Now, before we talk about whether or not minors should be allowed to purchase a violent video game, let's talk about parents. Maybe the state of California should invest in mandatory parenting classes instead of arguing over semantics and what actually constitutes violence. The last time I checked, parents are the ones that are supposed to provide structure and guidance to children, NOT the government.
When I was six years old, one of my favorite movies of all times was Commando, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. I would watch it over, and over, and over.... I loved it about as much as Alice in Wonderland and TMNT. I knew about every word of dialogue in that movie, as well as each kill and how it happened. I loved playing with plastic guns and swords, and building forts and defending them from my friends. I always knew, however, that the blood in commando was not real, because it was a movie. Looking back, I know I learned valuable lessons from that movie, like courage and leadership, that I still keep with me.
I think the court is going to strike down the law. How do you draw the line between video games, literature, movies, and other media? What constitutes violence and obscenity?
My opinion on the matter remains mixed. I don't want some 8-year-old to think that raping and killing prostitutes GTA-style is socially acceptable. Maybe the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the retailers?
Here's a little fun-fact. I'm 23, still looking pretty young, but once in a while I can buy alcohol without getting carded. This summer, while trying to buy the Alien movies trilogy on DVD from a California Wal-Mart, the cashier asked for my ID. I didn't have my ID on me, and the cashier said I looked too young, so he didn't let me buy it. WTF mate?
Clarisa Gonzalez
T/Th - 2 p.m.
The FCC website is really basic and very cluttered, in my opinion. It still needs a lot of work. The list of links on the left is way too lengthy.
As for the video game issue, when was the government given the responsibility of raising American children? Parents should decide whether or not certain materials are suitable for their children and act accordingly. I think the USSC will strike down this law. It's too touchy of a subject. Like Katina mentioned (via Justice Scalia): if the government began regulating video games in that manner, what would be next?
OK so the FCC site....uh terrible. I had a hard time forcing myself to dig a little. Granted there is good information there, but no want to go and find it.
As far as the violent video game fiasco, I am kind of everywhere. Being a psychology minor, I feel that its somewhat of a cop out to blame a video game. I feel like if the parents monitor the amount of time spent on a game and that the content of the game matches the age of their child, what's the harm? This is all classic Nature v. Nurture. I just dont see the justification in blaming horrific acts on a video game. I can see it if maybe their was significant overuse, but now we are getting into that "what-if" area. It's all so subjective and situational. This of course makes it very difficult to rule any case with past presidence. I think the USSC will rule in favor of the ban; whether I agree with it or not..ha.
Alyssa Ellis
T/TH 9:30 a.m.
I think the new FCC website is definitely an improvement from the old one. It's time they update the design.
After reading the article I think the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of Entertainment Merchants Association. They seem to think prohibiting violent video games would lead to prohibiting everything and eventually lead to fewer First Amendment rights. They understand that some games may be obscene but that's why there are rating systems. I don't think this case is dealing with obscenity/indecency directly, but the First Amendment. The question is how far can states challenge First Amendment rights before completely taking them away.
Baylie C. T/Th 2:00
I don't think its a big deal to have a law restricting minors from buying violent video games, it is just like minors not being able to go to a rated R movie without a parent present however on the other hand there are ways for kids to get into rated R movies without parents present, whether they sneak in or they ask someone older than them to buy their movie ticket and I think the same goes for video games. If parents want to buy their kid that video game then they can, its not like it is banning minors from playing the video game. Also, like Justice Scalia said when you do draw the line when it comes to issues like this? If this law isn't overturned then what are people going to challenge next, cominc books? So if this case is more about trying to keep people from constantly questioning what is actually protected by the First Amendment and trying to create laws that infringe upon it then I believe the law should be overturned. It is not like the violent video games are going to lead minors to act out in violent ways.
Dear Gilbert Martinez, I read your article and it was mildly interesting but Im really not interested in video games, so to be completely honest I'm only posting a comment so you give me participation points.
Please give me a B in your class,
Love,
Kevin Deckard
After reading this article I believe the USSC will rule in favor of the EMA. I think that it will be a close vote, the issue is a controversial one that needs to be addressed.
There are many restrictions for minors already, and the restrictions are in their best interest, to protect them. Movies have different ratings for age groups it shouldn't be an issue that video games should either.
Many of the video games out there are highly violent and demeaning to women. Such as Grand Theft Auto a person playing the game is able to have intercourse with a "hooker" in the car, run over people with a car, and beat people with bats. I don't believe this is a suitable game for an adolescent.
If the parents are fine with their children playing the game then thats their own judgement call, and they can buy the game for them. There should be restrictions on video games just like everything else it's not ok for a child of any age to be able to buy a "mature" video game.
Alison O'Neill
P.S.
Everything Kevin Deckard ever said in class I told him to say, so I think I should be rewarded with his participation points.
Love,
Alison O'Neill
Everything leads back to the fact that we want to protect children (minors) and people are willing to do whatever "they" think is necessary to accomplish it.
Again, the FCC website blows.
Katinka Dufour, 9:30
After reading the article, I think that EMA will win the case. I feel that if we start banning the sale of violent video games to minors then there are many other things that we should ban as well. It will never end, there are many things that can be outlawed to protect children more. Even though it would be good if no child younger than 18 had access to violent video games I don't think that is the right solution. Even if it is illegal for minors to buy violent video games they will still find a way to access them. Most children under 18 still live with their parents and I feel that it is their responsiblity as well to decide what video games their children are allowed to play or not. In general, kids or teenagers always want someting more when they know it is illegal. For some reason it seems more exciting to them.
I think that EMA has a higher possibility to win this case. Even though I can see the good intentions the government had in making this law, I feel like the court will rule in EMA's favor. I kind of feel like the court will say that it is not necessarily violating first amendment rights, but that it is vague and thus unconstitutional. I think they'll agree that video games are being targeted here, when there are many other mediums where violence is being shown to children. I also think that it should be up to the parents to keep track of what their own kids are up to, so even though they might not be at home when the minors are getting home from school, they should still not be so oblivious as to what they have been purchasing.
2 p.m.
I think the USSC will rule in favor of EMA.
This case kind of echoes the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) about George Carlin's seven dirty words broadcast. In that case, the USSC ruled in favor of the FCC. They could regulate the airwaves, but provided broadcasters with a "safe harbor" time when they could broadcast "indecent" material.
Back to Schwarz. v EMA, the "safe harbor" is going to be label warnings about the graphic nature of video games. Who's to say children won't turn on George Carlin's broadcast when their parents aren't monitoring them? Same goes for video games. If parents are going to let their children watch violent movies, why not let them play violent video games? As many have said, it's a matter of parent ethics with this issue, not an excuse for government to censor media.
Corie Lonidier
I just realized my comment never posted.
D=<
Well. The FCC site re-boot is a smidgen less offensive to my eyes compared to the original site. I'm honestly just not interested in it, whatsoever. The site could be made of rainbows, unicorns and Snickers bars, I still wouldn't be interested in the content. That being said, I'm sure those who do have to use the site regularly or even sparsely greatly appreciate the changes that are being made. It's about time they virtually stepped into the 21st century...
The Schwarzenegger case is an interesting one. It immediately reminds me of the Acclaim case that came about shortly after the Columbine massacre. The attempts at proving the direct correlation between violent video games and violent behavior failed to be proven there, so I don't see a change coming here. I believe this case will be ruled in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association. If it isn't... boy, are we in for it.
Kiana Fitzgerald
9:30 a.m. T/H
I think their new website is pretty lame...
I think its likely that some sort of regulation for video game sales to minors will result from this court case. If a child is not allowed to see a rated R movie, what makes you think that they will be able to play a video game with all of the same violence, nudity, obscenity and vulgarity? They will determine that regulating violent video game sales to minors is constitutional and necessary. Keeping obscenity out of the hands of minors has always been a priority for American regulatory agencies. I don't think my 8-year-old cousin will be purchasing a copy of Grand Theft Auto 4 anytime soon.
Post a Comment