Are Violent Video Games Free Speech?

Interesting debate in the Supreme Court. There is a case going on now where the concept of free speech in the form of video games (violent ones in this case) is up against consumer protection and the desire to protect kids from immersive violence.

Check out the article Court weighs state law banning ‘violent’ video games from children

The argument went something like this:

“What’s next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Movies that show smoking can’t be shown to children?” asked [Judge] Scalia. “Are we to sit day-by-day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment?”

“Why are video games special? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the lawyer from the state attorney general’s office.
Zackery Morazzini replied that the “interactive nature”– where players actually control the action — makes them different from more “passive” entertainment like movies or books.

The justices offered various hypotheticals, and mused whether specific types of “artistic” content could be regulated. They included fairy tales from the Brothers Grimm — which Scalia said “were quite grim” and rap music — which Justice Sonia Sotomayor labeled as “original violent songs that have been sung about killing people and about other violence directed to them.”

The state had submitted a short video game excerpt to the court as part of its briefing material. “I’m not suggesting that I like this video,” said Sotomayor. “To me, it’s not entertaining, but that’s not the point. To some it may well be.”

Morazzini tried to argue that video-game violence belonged in the same category as pornography — the only other free speech and expression area which the high court has said can be strictly controlled when it comes to minors.

“Sex and violence have both been around a long time, but there is a societal consensus about what’s offensive for sexual material and there are judicial discussions on it,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “But you are asking us to go into an entirely new area where there is no consensus, no judicial opinions. And this indicates to me the [California] statute might be vague.”

On the other side, several on the bench were clearly disturbed at the content of some games rated “M” — meaning they’re intended for mature players only.

“The child is not sitting there passively watching something; the child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming,” noted Chief Justice John Roberts, the only member of the court with young children. “And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child’s moral development.”

Breyer and Justice Samuel Alito also pointed to studies showing showing children who repeatedly watch on-screen games can become more aggressive, anti-social, and less able to distinguish the consequences of violence in real life. Parents groups and some lawmakers believe there is a “causal connection” between access to such games and psychological or other harm to children.

“You seem to argue that there really is no good reason to think that exposure to really violent video games is bad to minors,” Alito said to the industry’s lawyer. “We have here a new media that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time when the First Amendment was ratified.”

Attorney Paul Smith was repeatedly pressed by Alito and Roberts over whether any law regulating the sale of video games to children would be constitutional. He flatly said no, and cited other scientific studies showing no correlation in future acts of violence by youngsters playing video games.

To me the interesting quote is “The child is not sitting there passively watching something.” He or she is not, games engage players and learners. So, I think they have an influence that can be positive or negative depending on the content of the game. The interesting thing to me is that the immersive and “in control” elements are acknowledge by many of the justices as having an impact (which I believe they do). While many mangers and executives fail to see the educational value of games to impact employees.

Do some of the judges know something we don’t?

We know games teacher players. Checkout this article to see how an Army game actually saved a life.

Kids should not be exposed to violence and some form of regulation, like for smoking is not a bad thing but the bigger (and more interesting element) is the recognition by many that immersive environments, like games do have an impact on people…let’s turn that into a positive and encourage more immersive environments for critical, positive learning events.

In the meantime, let’s try to keep violent games away from kids (and violent TV shows, movies and books…its not the games…its the content)