Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Means War Isn't Over

[scott91575]

I love how Alito spends time stating video games are not like books or movies or radio/tv. Um yeah, duh. Guess what, movies are not like books, books are not like radio, and radio is not like movies. Yet they are all forms of speech which are protected by the 1st amendment. I have read a lot of Supreme Court decisions, and it still baffles me how some Justices can completely miss the boat on the real issue and go off on strange, inconsequential tangents.

 

[CCountZero]

That Thomas guy has a disgusting view of minor rights. Good to know that someone in our Supreme Court thinks that a parent should have the right to prevent any or all contact with their children despite age and the child's consent until adulthood.

That said, at least we won, and the dissenters still don't outnumber those that voted it was flat-out unconstitutional. I haven't lost faith in our Supreme Court yet.

My thoughts exactly.

He can't seriously mean to say that the first amendment doesn't cover minors, thereby opening the door for the punishment of children seeking help to combat abuse in the home and whatnot.

Sounds to me like he massively screwed up his wording.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I thought Alito had the best opinion.

Like it or not, the fact that video games are interactive HAS been shown to use more of the brain than non interactivity, and provide better retention.

His view was that we shouldn't simply ignore the claim, but investigate it further.

He agreed with the majority not because there was not enough current evidence, but because of their 1st amendment rights, as he should be.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I find this whole issue a generational one and feel that this victory has left enough time for the younger generation to come into their own world, by this point most likely complaining about some other new medium of sorts.

Video games will be accept in time, currently though the old times are in charge.

 

[Atheist.]

Didn't this already set a legal precedent? They can't just straight up change their minds, that's irresponsible.

The Supreme Court can reverse their own decisions. It's pretty unlikely that this court would do so, but a future court with a different set of judges could potentially reverse the ruling. It has happened in the past, though I believe that it's usually striking down something that was previously ruled as being allowed, and not the reverse.

That said, the majority ruling in this case is very solid and specific. That ruling was that video games are as fully protected as free speech as other forms of media. Five judges supported it, and it's the best outcome possible from the case.

The minority ruling joined only in saying that in the law as written "violent video games" and other similar phrases were too vague to be constitutional. Two judges supported this viewpoint, which is basically a "This one is bad, but you can go back and try again" mandate.

So it's possible, but not that likely.

Ah, thanks for the information. Now that I think about it, I've heard of them reversing decisions in the past.

 

[aristos_achaion]

What he said

This is pretty much exactly what my wife was saying. You haz thumbs up. All conditions are green, you are a go.

Can anybody point me to a case in recent decades where a dissenting or minority concurring opinion was a solid basis for a reversal of a Supreme Court decision in a later case?

Well, the issue here is less of whether the concurring opinion will form the basis for a later opinion overturning this one than a later court might rule differently on a different law...i.e., the concurring opinions wanted this ruling to be much narrower than it is. However, even if the concurring opinions went the other way in a future case, we still get a 5-4 split, which is enough, unless one of the majority opinion retires and gets replaced by someone who's not disposed towards games.

 

[Radoh]

Dissent means nothing, even if it were a 9-0 there would still be the opposition and Senator Yee would try again regardless.

Still, with each successive win we take is another space of time where people like Senator Yee become less and less relevant, slowly losing their support like the waning tides. Every win is another battle that doesn't need to be fought further down the line.

The war is ours and we will not lose. After all, time is on our side.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Time is in our favor. Right now our hobby is still young and therefore an easy target. However, video games have steadily been gaining acceptance in society and will eventually be seen in the same light as other popular media. My guess is that public opinion will have shifted quite a bit before another case like this gets anywhere near the Supreme Court again.

 

[Canid117]

"I do not think the First Amendment stretches that far. The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that 'the freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," wrote Thomas.

It also didn't apply to black people or women but we got past that. Also does this include books, film, paintings and plays? Can a law get passed that bans RENT because it offends a couple of people? Can Brokeback Mountain be banned for its positive depiction of gays? Can Commando be banned for teaching children that evil people's bullets will never hit them? Can the Batman films be banned for encouraging vigilantism and wiretapping among the youth? I seriously wonder what Justice Thomas thinks.

 

[DoctorM]

I know I hold the unpopular view, but minors can't buy or see NC-17 or adult films, and they can't go to the store and buy a copy of Penthouse. Why should video games get SPECIAL protection under the law?

We aren't talking about banning games, we are talking about keeping extreme content out of the hands of minors (without parental consent). Once you are an adult you can buy anything you want and I won't say boo. (I'll say less than boo, because I'll be too busy playing it).

While I'm not a fan of the rating bodies out there (MPAA, ESRB, etc.), they are industry, not government run. I have no problem with their ratings being government enforced.

There are too many absent parents and kids willing to go behind their parents' back.
Does it hurt having a law preventing a store from selling a 10 year old the AO rated version of Manhunt 2 or Rapelay?

Properly written, this law should be on the books.

 

[metal mustache]

I don't get Alito's position; he says that video games are too different as a media from books, but then he just goes ahead and describes a violent scene from a book as it would be in a video game, so hasn't he simply proven the opposite of what he just said? (Although i might just see it like this because i have aspergers... I translate words from text into images and pictures, so reading highly descriptive text creates a movie in my mind). And don't even get me started on his his statement that games are totally different then movies.
It really just comes down to the writing.

 

[weirdee]

I don't know what game the guy in the excerpt is playing, but I want a piece of that.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

people need to take responsibility for themselves and stop demanding that the government do it for them.

/debate

Seriously. Own up, people. You want the government banning anything you don't want your kids to get a hold off? There goes every M movie, adult book and explicit record ever made. You wanna blame violence in a video game for your mental instability? There goes anything that could possibly invoke someone to anger, and let's not forget, more deaths have been caused because of footbal brawls than video games.

A little less QQ, a little more parenting and personal responsibility.

Actually, you could say with confidence that the game of (american and non-american) football has caused more deaths than video games.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Oh for FUCKS SAKE. The Supreme court ruled AGAINST IT. It's OVER. Just STOP!

 

[AdumbroDeus]

Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Means War Isn't Over

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of games this time, but they may have have left the door open to laws restricting game sales in the future.

Today is a good day for videogames. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not constitutional to restrict sales of games based on violent content [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111300-Supreme-Court-Rules-in-Favor-of-Videogames]. A majority of the nine justices voted in favor of striking down California's proposed law, but the decision was far from unanimous. Two justices (Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer) voted in favor of the law, claiming that minors were not protected by the First Amendment, but two justices wrote a concurrent opinion that merely said the language and framing of the California law didn't work. Justice Alito left open the possibility that a properly worded law could get his vote in the future.

Thomas and Breyer voted in favor of the law because they believe the First Amendment was not meant to protect minors' choice in viewing all media without the parent's consent. "I do not think the First Amendment stretches that far. The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that 'the freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," wrote Thomas.

The law stated that it is up to the parents to decide whether the kids can play restricted games as long as they buy them, and Thomas had no problem with a law upholding the parent's right to choose but restricting sale directly to minors.

More troubling, however, is the argument brought forth by Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in the concurrent decision which claims games are different from books or movies and could be subject to different consideration.

"I would hold only that the particular law at issue here fails to provide the clear notice that the Constitution requires," Alito wrote. "I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem. If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us."

Justice Alito believes, and Chief Justice Roberts agrees with him, that games are an inherently different medium than books or movies, and therefore might deserve more scrutiny. For Alito, it is the detail and interaction which must be considered as he illustrates with a thrilling argument:

To take an example, think of a person who reads the passage in Crime and Punishment in which Raskolnikov kills the old pawn broker with an axe. Compare that reader with a video-game player who creates an avatar that bears his own image; who sees a realistic image of the victim and the scene of the killing in high definition and in three dimensions; who is forced to decide whether or not to kill the victim and decides to do so; who then pretends to grasp an axe, to raise it above the head of the victim, and then to bring it down; who hears the thud of the axe hitting her head and her cry of pain; who sees her split skull and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands. For most people, the two experiences will not be the same.

Alito does not believe that we should dismiss the different qualities of videogames when considering their legality. "When all of the characteristics of video games are taken into account, there is certainly a reasonable basis for thinking that the experience of playing a video game may be quite different from the experience of reading a book, listening to a radio broadcast, or viewing a movie. And if this is so, then for at least some minors, the effects of playing violent video games may also be quite different. The Court acts prematurely in dismissing this possibility out of hand."

Luckily, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts did not think it necessary to vote differently than the majority, but they do raise concerns that we may not have seen the end of legislation restricting videogames.

Today, we won the battle, but the war is far from over.



Permalink

Don't worry.

Look at the breakdown of the decision.


Look at the viewpoints espoused. Firstly understand that Thomas' decision was based on his views of parental rights, not a fundamental difference between video games and other speech. He implies throughout his decision that video games are no different from other forms of speech legally.

Furthermore, look at the other breakdown, only 2 justices (the dissents) held that the government may restrict access to speech for minors. Since they voted with the opinion of the court and did not mention any opposition to it in their concurrences.


So here's the real breakdowns:

Video games are no different then other speech legally, and legislatures cannot carve out new classes of unprotected speech:

Yes: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan

No: Beyer, Roberts, Alito

6-3

The government may not restrict access to protected speech from children (and the only difference between what is protected speech for adults and protected speech for minors, is that the community may be different):

Yes: Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, Alito

No: Beyer, Thomas


Now it becomes a bit more obvious at what the court was actually trying to make a statement about for this decision, namely minor's rights. Furthermore this is an important decision because it essentially rules that media in general is covered by free speech and only already unprotected categories of speech may be legally restricted.


As it stands this is a landmark decision for minor's rights and also a landmark decision for freedom of speech. The fact that there's a a majority for the majority decision speaks volumes. The fact that our side has 6 of the nine justices speaks more, and the fact that the protection of minors' rights got 7 out of the 9 speaks even more.


The court is (almost) never unanimous. But because of the ratio, and because it is a landmark decision in the field of both minor's rights and free speech expect this decision to stand firm, with only a complete shake-up in the supreme court could potentially result in it being eroded or overturned. Frankly I don't see that as likely.

 

[ckam]

"The power of art courses through our Planet back and forth
across the borders of life and death. If that cycle is the very truth
of life then history, too, will inevitably repeat itself.

So go on -- bring your restrictive bills and your Yees. It won't
matter. We'll do as life dictates and stop you every single time."

Bang.