News: US Supreme Court rules that games are protected speech
by TheGasMan · in General Discussion · 06/27/2011 (12:27 pm) · 15 replies
Quote:US Supreme Court rules that games are protected speech
The US Supreme Court today ruled 7-2 that video games qualify for the same First Amendment protection as books, plays and movies. This is a significant ruling for our industry as it confirms the creative storytelling nature of our medium. It also supports the Amicus brief we filed with the AIAS supporting the EMA in this case. This case will likely have far reaching impact on the US Game Industry and the IGDA will be looking at this in more depth in the coming days. In the meantime join us in celebrating the strong support of our creative expression this ruling provides.
- The IGDA Board of Directors
Source: igdaboard.wordpress.com/
More in depth article here: venturebeat.com/2011/06/27/reactions-to-the-supreme-court-decision-on-video-game...
About the author
gameartstore.com
Recent Threads
#2
06/27/2011 (1:11 pm)
Where is Jack Thompson to over-turn this ruling? 
#3
Honestly, anyone with half a brain saw this decision coming. Not a single measure attacking development and/or sales of video games has passed in the US. There are too many precedents based on other forms of media that uphold the concept of free speech.
06/27/2011 (1:20 pm)
USA USA USA =)Honestly, anyone with half a brain saw this decision coming. Not a single measure attacking development and/or sales of video games has passed in the US. There are too many precedents based on other forms of media that uphold the concept of free speech.
#4
Frankly I cannot see this changing anything other that the fact there will be bunches of games that based on hateful things simply because the first amendment bypasses and an all common sense and censorship laws.
All i can see this doing is adding an even bigger divide between the US and the rest of the world as far as games and game distribution is concerned.
I wonder how long before the first vile games get produced, I hope that distributors have enough sense to make sure somebody holds some level of censorship.
Not that this ruling really effects me at all anyway :)
BTW you do also know that the US supreme court ruled that the american right to free speech does not extend to online gaming, just another weird fact :)
06/27/2011 (2:36 pm)
Im More interesting in seeing what kind of games have been banned or halted because they were considered unacceptable before this ruling.Frankly I cannot see this changing anything other that the fact there will be bunches of games that based on hateful things simply because the first amendment bypasses and an all common sense and censorship laws.
All i can see this doing is adding an even bigger divide between the US and the rest of the world as far as games and game distribution is concerned.
I wonder how long before the first vile games get produced, I hope that distributors have enough sense to make sure somebody holds some level of censorship.
Not that this ruling really effects me at all anyway :)
BTW you do also know that the US supreme court ruled that the american right to free speech does not extend to online gaming, just another weird fact :)
#5
Like a 3D beat'em-up where you knock the clothes off uniform-fetish dressed, vampire-girls?
Oh wait, that's the number ONE commercial game in the Japanese console charts right now ...
:P
06/27/2011 (3:11 pm)
Quote:
I wonder how long before the first vile games get produced
Like a 3D beat'em-up where you knock the clothes off uniform-fetish dressed, vampire-girls?
Oh wait, that's the number ONE commercial game in the Japanese console charts right now ...
:P
#6
This basically opens a door for states/entities to control but not prohibit. ..and removal of 'the ability to prohibit' is the big gain.
Example:
I would imagine that some small US town would love to ban games altogether..but now, they can't. They can control the sale of violent games by not selling them to minors..but they can not prohibit the product's existence based on storyline, visuals, packaging, etc.
It's huge, and if you can't see that, then I'm sorry to say but I think that means that you've taken these rights for granted thus far.
@Steve, perfect Father Ted reference. I wish they'd find a new father Ted and make more episodes...brilliant show.
06/27/2011 (3:11 pm)
I wouldn't pigeon hole this as a gain for violent media creators..and I am sure there will be local legislation that controls the medium to an extent that each city/county/state feels is justifiable and reasonable. This basically opens a door for states/entities to control but not prohibit. ..and removal of 'the ability to prohibit' is the big gain.
Example:
I would imagine that some small US town would love to ban games altogether..but now, they can't. They can control the sale of violent games by not selling them to minors..but they can not prohibit the product's existence based on storyline, visuals, packaging, etc.
It's huge, and if you can't see that, then I'm sorry to say but I think that means that you've taken these rights for granted thus far.
@Steve, perfect Father Ted reference. I wish they'd find a new father Ted and make more episodes...brilliant show.
#7
Its not even about violence, some of the most violent games made have been created by US companies, so clearly there was no impediment to that, but the floodgates are now open to racist and other such content.
I can just imagine rockstars new game aimed at Religious people, the new FPS Queer Hunter, or the first KKK themed RPG, both of which seem right up rockstars street since they love to court controversy.
As for not 'seeing it' that is probably because i'm not american, i dont think i have the god given right to say what i think even if its deeply offensive, its just a cultural difference between the average US citizen and the average EU citizen.
But i will re-iterate for good measure, what games were stopped, prohibited or banned because freedom of speech was denied to them, and were there any non extremist type games amongst them?
Or let me ask this another way, what games can *you* make now that you couldnt before?
06/27/2011 (4:07 pm)
As i did say earlier, id like to see examples of game that were prohibited.Its not even about violence, some of the most violent games made have been created by US companies, so clearly there was no impediment to that, but the floodgates are now open to racist and other such content.
I can just imagine rockstars new game aimed at Religious people, the new FPS Queer Hunter, or the first KKK themed RPG, both of which seem right up rockstars street since they love to court controversy.
As for not 'seeing it' that is probably because i'm not american, i dont think i have the god given right to say what i think even if its deeply offensive, its just a cultural difference between the average US citizen and the average EU citizen.
But i will re-iterate for good measure, what games were stopped, prohibited or banned because freedom of speech was denied to them, and were there any non extremist type games amongst them?
Or let me ask this another way, what games can *you* make now that you couldnt before?
#8
You're refusing to see the good side of this.
I quit this thread too.
06/27/2011 (4:25 pm)
//edited out the first sentence since it wasn't exactly providing anything to the thread.You're refusing to see the good side of this.
I quit this thread too.
#9
Like almost everything else in life you have to balance the pros and the cons, and I'm not seeing the pros here, just the cons, now maybe that is purely the cultural differences. Even if there are pros they have to outnumber the cons for this to be considered good.
I will still maintain that this has no effect on me either way, and i dont think there will be any major benefits, with the possibe side effect of giving jack thompson no leg to stand on, and even then, i'll miss looking forward to whatever his next stunt will be :p
06/27/2011 (4:39 pm)
So explain to me the good side, instead of riding off on your high horse, hop off and explain how this is a good thing.Like almost everything else in life you have to balance the pros and the cons, and I'm not seeing the pros here, just the cons, now maybe that is purely the cultural differences. Even if there are pros they have to outnumber the cons for this to be considered good.
I will still maintain that this has no effect on me either way, and i dont think there will be any major benefits, with the possibe side effect of giving jack thompson no leg to stand on, and even then, i'll miss looking forward to whatever his next stunt will be :p
#10
The ESRB will maintain its standards. Distributors will still decide what they carry, based on the ESRB. Game developers will continue to make games as they see fit. I think you are creating an ordeal out of nothing, much like the people who tried to push this measure. The fact that it made it all the way to the Supreme Court is a failure of common sense to begin with, but that's what you get when you have people like Lee trying to "protect the children."
06/27/2011 (4:43 pm)
Umm, Bloodknight...nothing has changed. It's back to normal, basically. The industry wasn't crusading against the big console makers and distributors to allow AO games.The ESRB will maintain its standards. Distributors will still decide what they carry, based on the ESRB. Game developers will continue to make games as they see fit. I think you are creating an ordeal out of nothing, much like the people who tried to push this measure. The fact that it made it all the way to the Supreme Court is a failure of common sense to begin with, but that's what you get when you have people like Lee trying to "protect the children."
#11
I have closely followed every single piece of legislation related to the games industry. It's the only form of politics I truly care about. Every time this comes up, someone blows it out of proportion. Just like before, everyone is going to go back to doing what they love
No fear of someone kicking in their office door and confiscating their computers (poor Crytek). We also do not have to worry about getting fined for blasphemous language (poor Ireland). Nor do we have to worry about paying an additional 20-40 percent for playing games the rest of the world gets, just because politics refuse to acknowledge a proper rating system (poor Australia).
We get to make games. Best job ever.
06/27/2011 (5:11 pm)
Quote:Like almost everything else in life you have to balance the pros and the cons, and I'm not seeing the pros here,The pros are that a slippery slope of extreme censorship has been avoided.
Quote:just the cons,Nothing new has been introduced, so there is no negative side effect. Nothing has changed in the past four years of attempts to regulate game development or distribution.
Quote:i'll miss looking forward to whatever his next stunt will be :pHe hasn't been active in nearly two years. Ever since he was disbarred and banned from practicing, he has fallen off the radar.
I have closely followed every single piece of legislation related to the games industry. It's the only form of politics I truly care about. Every time this comes up, someone blows it out of proportion. Just like before, everyone is going to go back to doing what they love
No fear of someone kicking in their office door and confiscating their computers (poor Crytek). We also do not have to worry about getting fined for blasphemous language (poor Ireland). Nor do we have to worry about paying an additional 20-40 percent for playing games the rest of the world gets, just because politics refuse to acknowledge a proper rating system (poor Australia).
We get to make games. Best job ever.
#12
(this is not *you* you, its just a generalisation 'you', just in case :p)
Well, i always planned on using the lowest common denominator anyway, ive read lots about australias issues with games, some really seem odd to me, and yet some seem strangely fine, I think planning to meet lower standards is a good way for an indie to think anyway, it maximises the market.
06/27/2011 (5:56 pm)
I think a 'carte blanche' to bypass censorship is a con in its own right, i may sound extreme to you over the pond dwellers, but expecting commercial entities to make ethical decisions that may cost money is wholly optimistic imo, corrupt as governments are, they are rank amateurs next to corporations. And lets face it, nobody *really* believes in free speech and all that hoohar, they believe they have the right to do it, but when somebody uses that free speech on you you dont believe in it :p(this is not *you* you, its just a generalisation 'you', just in case :p)
Well, i always planned on using the lowest common denominator anyway, ive read lots about australias issues with games, some really seem odd to me, and yet some seem strangely fine, I think planning to meet lower standards is a good way for an indie to think anyway, it maximises the market.
#13
That, I think, expresses the cultural difference in a nutshell. In the US there is no such expectation. Instead, the expectation is that citizens will make our own ethical decisions, and decide for ourselves to buy the game or not, based on our own moral guidelines.
A game that is so universally abhorrent that virtually no one buys it will fail in the marketplace anyway, with no censorship needed. By contrast, a game that succeeds in the marketplace is obviously not universally offensive, and so no censorship is justified.
06/27/2011 (6:42 pm)
Quote:... expecting commercial entities to make ethical decisions that may cost money is wholly optimistic imo...
That, I think, expresses the cultural difference in a nutshell. In the US there is no such expectation. Instead, the expectation is that citizens will make our own ethical decisions, and decide for ourselves to buy the game or not, based on our own moral guidelines.
A game that is so universally abhorrent that virtually no one buys it will fail in the marketplace anyway, with no censorship needed. By contrast, a game that succeeds in the marketplace is obviously not universally offensive, and so no censorship is justified.
#14
1. We already have a regulating body: ESRB
2. We have an organization regulating sales: ESA
3. We have an organization watching out for the consumer: ECA
4. We have an ultimate governing body that should be the final word on what minors consume: Parents/Legal guardians
What we also have and do not need is a politician with a loose agenda pushing a bill that has been overturned THREE times, wasting many tax dollars for the beaten excuse of "protect the children." The children are protected. The game companies are held accountable. The point is that the ruling was just and account was seen from miles and miles away.
As for freedom of speech, you are close to something. We have despicable wastes of space, who I will not name because they do not need the attention, picketing funerals. They are protected by the same principle we are talking about now. Does that suck? Yeah, more than anything I can think of. We live with it, though. Know why, because it does boil down to freedom. I'm free to ignore their hate, just as I will be free to choose the content I want my children to consume.
06/27/2011 (10:05 pm)
@Bloodknight - There is no 'carte blanche'. The ESRB already pushes a correct form of moderation. If they deem a game to be Adults Only (AO), you will not see that game in the stores or on the big consoles. The game goes back into development if the publishers/developers want it to see the light of day. They plaster game boxes with age and content descriptors.1. We already have a regulating body: ESRB
2. We have an organization regulating sales: ESA
3. We have an organization watching out for the consumer: ECA
4. We have an ultimate governing body that should be the final word on what minors consume: Parents/Legal guardians
What we also have and do not need is a politician with a loose agenda pushing a bill that has been overturned THREE times, wasting many tax dollars for the beaten excuse of "protect the children." The children are protected. The game companies are held accountable. The point is that the ruling was just and account was seen from miles and miles away.
As for freedom of speech, you are close to something. We have despicable wastes of space, who I will not name because they do not need the attention, picketing funerals. They are protected by the same principle we are talking about now. Does that suck? Yeah, more than anything I can think of. We live with it, though. Know why, because it does boil down to freedom. I'm free to ignore their hate, just as I will be free to choose the content I want my children to consume.
Associate Steve Acaster
[YorkshireRifles.com]
:P
derp