[PATV] Monday, August 1, 2011 - Extra Credits Season 1, Ep. 6: Free Speech

Dog

[PATV] Monday, August 1, 2011 - Extra Credits Season 1, Ep. 6: Free Speech

This week, we discuss an upcoming Supreme Court case and what it could mean for the future of video games.

Read the full story here

Le_Flemard

even if it's a little late, even if I don't like some words in the end as an atheist, even if I'm french (go boo me if you want america, as a Breton, your stereotypes doesn't concern me), I still found this video very interesting, I don't know the result, but maybe I will find it on the vids.

Kristofski

One thing I can't help but keep thinking about when watching this video - how is giving video games ratings based on content and restricting the sale of games with a high level of violence or sexual content any different from what already happens with movies? The movie industry hasn't been affected negatively by this (there are times when a director will slightly alter a film so it will be able to get a lower classification, but it's rarely a major thing). Directors are still making violent films and shops are still selling them but just restricting who can buy them. Why do you think this will be any different for video games?

rainbowhyphen

@Kristofski The difference is that MPAA ratings, like ESRB ratings, have no legal meaning, and are enforced voluntarily. Best Buy or Walmart can choose to have a policy not to sell M-rated games and R-rated films to minors, but it doesn't have to. Likewise, there's nothing to stop retailers from carrying unrated games or films, although obviously they have to restrict the sale of outright pornographic material.

This law changes that, establishing an unfair and arbitrary bias against a specific medium. It's not good for the industry or humanity, and it makes no sense. If it doesn't apply to movies, or to television, or to books, or to still images, then it definitely should not apply to games.

ANTVGM64

So, I don't mind limiting the sale of violent games to minors, much like R-rated movies, etc etc. I think it's a fair compromise.

Owlish

If we do not retain the right to make our own choices, what freedom can we claim to have.

Cris738

I surely hope that we don't lose the case. I wish you good luck game industry!

ichaelis

I can sympathize with both sides of the argument here.

As others have point out, what makes a game worse than a book or film? Books don't even HAVE rating, but according to this Miller's test, 50 Shades of Grey is "obscene" and therefore, doesn't fall under free speech and should be monitored; but it's right up on the shelf along with Harry Potter and Winnie the Pooh. But a game, which already has a rating is somehow worse?

On the other hand, I don't agree that minors should have the ability to choose what they buy - at least not in this respect. Children/minors have access to porn on the internet because they can easily lie about their age when there's nothing but a button and the "honour system" stopping them. Children/minors get alcohol and cigarettes even though it's illegal for them to have them. And it's illegal because governments deem it dangerous or inappropriate. So if children/minors can't accept laws already there to protect them, how can they respect the responsibility of choosing a game to play with sexual or violent content? They'd buy it BECAUSE it has sex or violent content just because it's the only real medium they have to get that stuff without restrictions.

I think everyone would love to think that minors today are as responsible as they were 100 years ago, when "teenagers" really didn't exist and everyone was just a child or an adult, but honestly, seeing children these days...I think that's too much credit.

HLgamer

You preach it brother!

It is a form of art and creativity. I also feel the government has no business protecting us (people) from ourselves and no authority to intercede and decide who we should live our lives, raise our children, give religious guidence to our families or adhere to our family traditions. The laws in our country have already gone much further than they should in invading the rights intended under the constitution and unless there is a force holding htem back the government will continue to push until they have removed freedom and rights from the people, using the excuse of protecting the people.