Video games as we know them may soon change forever.
A high-profile Supreme Court case is currently playing out in our nation’s capitol that could redefine the basic definition of what Americans think of as free speech.
Some Foothill students are concerned the outcome of this case might infringe on their First Amendment rights.
“A game as innocent as Mario Party could potentially be included under the definition of violence written in this law,” said Senior Lindsay Boyd. “It seems to me that games that are far less violent than this law is meant to cover could easily be thrown into this new special category of games.”
“Millions of kids” able to get their hands on M-rated video games
To investigate both sides of the issue, the Foothill Dragon Press recently spoke with two prominent figures on the issue: Adam Keigwin, the chief of staff for California State Senator Leeland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo); and Adam Sessler, video game journalist and host of G4TV’s show X-Play.
Keigwin, a proponent of the law, expressed concern about the “failure” of the video game industry to properly restrict minors from accessing explicitly violent material.
{sidebar id=4}
Keigwin draws a distinct line between the impact of video games and other, more passive, forms of entertainment on children.
Law could create “a snowball effect” for all forms of entertainment
Sessler, however, was quick to point out how the law could possibly provide a broad, disturbing precedent.
Keigwin also seemed to agree with this point, at least in part.
Law could create a “slippery slope” for other laws to follow
Sessler, who was present at the Supreme Court while the oral arguments were being heard on the California law, predicted that the court would hand down a ruling “somewhere between 3-6 or 2-7 against the law.”
A number of justices stood out as being strongly against the law, Sessler said.
“Is it okay for a 12-year-old? A 17-year-old?” said Justice Ruth Ginsberg to the California attorney. “This statute requires labeling these games in big letters ‘18+’. So this law in California doesn’t make any distinctions between 17 and 4-year-olds.”
Justices also found problems with the defense’s position, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in court: “The vast majority of the questions at issue today are designed to probe whether or not this statute is vague. And we have ruled in the past that there are certain types of material that are not covered by the First Amendment, such as some sexual material, but you’re asking us to go into an entirely new area, where there is no scientific consensus, and this indicates to me that this law might be vague.”
Law needs to be “way more specific”
The question of whether violent or sexual material is harmful to minors is one that has been debated for decades, with countless studies pointing to either side of the argument.
What either side of this case boils down to is the basic question of what should be defined as obscene, and thus unprotected material. In the United States, obscene content is judged by a legal standard called the Miller Test,which uses a three-point checklist that all material must meet in order to be deemed unprotected by the First Amendment.
The test states a work is unprotected if:
-
the average person, applying “contemporary community standards” would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
-
the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law’
-
the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
There was a general agreement among the Foothill students, however, that this law is a bad idea. Junior Luke Barnett, feels that while the intentions behind the law were well-founded, there is no practical way for the law to be enforced in the real world.
{jcomments on}