So, in case you haven't heard by now, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 ruling that video games are protected by First Amendment Rights. This is great news for everyone involved in the gaming industry...well, not so much Jack Thompson, but the people that actually want games to succeed...it's a good thing.
As many of you know, I'm a college student in education. I've been a substitute teacher for most of the time I've been a student, and plan on eventually having my own class...however, something many of you don't know is that I'm also a law student. Now, I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, but I have a little perspective as to what this really means that some of us may not.
First off, the ruling, 7-2, is more like 5-4. If you weren't paying attention the day they went over the Supreme Court in your high school civics/U.S. Government course, this is how it works. Each court justice votes and write an opinion. Five did rule such that video games are something that should be viewed as material that should be protected by free speech. We more commonly call this "art".
However, while the majority did rule in favor of this, there were two among them that said in their opinions that the bill that the State of California passed could be used as a "stepping stone" for other forms of censorship, implying that this was their largest concern with the bill.
This wasn't their only reason. In Justice Alito's (and by extension of the vote, Chief Justice Roberts) opinion of the ruling, games are very much like art, however, the experience is unfathomably different. Alito has obviously researched all technology currently available in gaming and compares the stories in gaming to that of the Odyssey and Dante's Divine Comedy (both which have inspired gaming multiple times, incidentally). To this end, he worries that if games become to realistic (i.e. full body feedback systems or, and I still can't believe that a Supreme Court Justice described these, holodecks) and/or that some games cater to more antisocial and violent behaviors (specifically mentioning both the VA Tech and Columbine Massacre Games that unfortunately exist; no, I will not provide links to these), that games could become on par with pornographic materials, seeming as though in particular, the subject of "snuff" films.
If you get the chance, you should read the three official opinions, and you might should research the nine justices and the author of the original bill, Leland Yee. It interesting in particular that the justices voted the way they did, specifically based on justices perspective parties. Hard-line democrats Thomas and Breyer were the only ones to dissent entirely (and Breyer's opinion is actually understandable up to a point...his science is atrocious, but the actual opinion is arguably valid) and only their Republican counterparts voted concurrently. Strangely, it was only those middle line people who voted the way in which we might.
So here's the thing...while games can now be recognized as art, as with art, there are levels at which the material becomes pornographic or exploitative in nature. While the bulk of gamers do not wish to play games like those mentioned above or the rather disturbing rape simulators, these games do exist, and in large part, non-gaming individuals and gaming detractors tend to see those more often than interactive narratives we as gamers truly endorse and enjoy. However, they do exist, and a way to prevent those uneducated or undeveloped moralistically might really need to be looked into...but by people who know the medium and understand things like the ESRB rather than groups like the very vocal Parents Television Council.
I promise I'll get back to the more lighthearted blogs tomorrow, but for now, I want to hear your thoughts on this. This is a great day for the gaming industry as a whole, but we're not done yet...
-Sara
For the record, I am actually independent of any parties, right down the middle between Republican and Democratic, very Conservative in that I hate the government hindrance, though not against necessary governmental policies. I am double majoring in Pre-Law Studies and Education - All Subjects, meaning I take courses in upper levels history, science, math, and English, as well as the three P's, political science, philosophy, and psychology. I have no degree in any of these yet, and even if I did, I would never say I was an expert at any of them, however, based on this, I feel that I can probably express a valid opinion about the situation and the results that have caused it. Oh, and I really love gaming...duh.
No comments:
Post a Comment