should video games be protected by the first amendment?

For the benefit of all us non-Americans, perhaps you could elaborate on what the First Amendment is, where it's currently used, and how it could relate to videogames.

 

1st amendment = the right to free speech, freedom of press, etc

Yes, I think games should be protected by it.

 

well i voted "i don't know" casue it depends on the gaming situation. but then after i voted i saw the "it depends on the game and situation" poll. so i cant go back and change it. but anyway i think it depends on the gaming situation.

 

"depends on the games and the situation"


One guy made a Colubine High School Massacre mod for a game (Half-Life or something) closely following the events of Columbine. The goal was to do essentially what the murderers did at Columbine.

First amendment or not, that's just sick and should be stopped.

 

that is sick

 

How do Libel laws mesh with the First Amendment in the US?

 

in the US you can sue anybody, cause people are flat out stupid.


Most liability siuts have to do with stupid people scapegoating.

but for sake of argument i would say that games almost dont qualify under the 1st ammendment.

If people keep suing people for offending them or putting out controversial topics then we would be moving twords the world of Bradbury's 451 Fahrenheit.

 

First Amendment: SPARP
Speech
Press
Assembly
Religion
Petition

I personally don't think they should be. There's precedent enough. Child pornography could be viewed in a similar light, if you look at it. The sick bastards in NAMBLA may claim that their "material" is their right to free speech or whatever, but the bottom line is that it's harmful stuff. That isn't protected by the Bill of Rights, obviously, as it's outlawed. The same reasoning could be extended to video games, even though the two are, in my opinion, on completely opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to harmfulness.

Still, tricky question. I believe we should have the freedom to game, and that people should have the freedom from gaming. That's the way it is now, and it shouldn't change.

 

i like to stress responsiblitiy. one can publish what he wants but he must be conscious of the possible repurcussions of that. If you know that you are going to put out something controversial then you had better be ready for the backlash

 

I'm doubting Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson knew that their 1st ammendment would be applied to games that had you getting blow jobs for health points.

-Jomero

 

"...in the US you can sue anybody, cause people are flat out stupid."

Don't even get me started. Ever wonder why the cups on McDonald's styrofoam cups say HOT! HOT! HOTHOT! HOT! HOT!HOT! HOT! HOT!?

Honestly, some people's kids...

 

I recently did a paper on this subject. It's a rather interesting subject. I think it should be protected. I think it's the creator who should be responsible for his or her content. When a game comes out it is the consummer who should decide what is moraly and ethicly right for them. If games were not protected by the first amendment we'd see goverment try to come in and regulate games. If this happened it would reek of fascism.

Edit: Don't even get me started. Ever wonder why the cups on McDonald's styrofoam cups say HOT! HOT! HOTHOT! HOT! HOT!HOT! HOT! HOT!?

So true I read about this 80 year old woman who sued the tobacco industy for 8 billion dollars and got 28 even though her doctors told her that smokeing was damaging her health.

 

I think they should be protected. Its the store's choice whether they sell it or not but there should be no suing over video games. This is a simple case of don't like it, don't buy it.

 

What happens re. the First Amendment when a game (movie / book / whatever) is created outside the USA?

Say Bioware in Canada, or any number of European gaming companies... can they be held to differing standards or immunity from being sued?

 

actually, i do believe that Europe (especially england) has some regulations where published material is concerned.

sure in england you can show nudity, but escessive violence is frowned upon. so games that are made in the UK generally have much less violance then those in the US. some US titles are even modified and edited so that they can be sold in europe

 

I actually thought it was the other way around, and I live in Europe.

Could you give any examples?

 

I think it should be protected (and I think they technically are), but still fall under tha same standards as other printed and electronic media - i.e. no child porn, age limits for legal porn, etc. - which I guess is what the rating system is for.

 

i have heard of games that have been unable to sell in the UK cause of their violence content, but i cant give specific examples right now.

 

"depends on the games and the situation"


One guy made a Colubine High School Massacre mod for a game (Half-Life or something) closely following the events of Columbine. The goal was to do essentially what the murderers did at Columbine.

First amendment or not, that's just sick and should be stopped.

I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT

And games should be able to do pretty much what they want cept kiddie porn.


I want a game where I am a serial killer

 

The First Amendment protects all sorts of things that I disagree with, such as the KKK, neo-Nazis and various forms of twisted pornography. Though some people disagree, it also protects flag burning. I've always believed in the quote (and I forget where it's from and I'm paraphrasing it) "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."

There's no "It depends on the subject matter" to the First Amendment. It protects it all, or nothing. We can't just protect the things we like. What you find offensive I might enjoy, and what I find offensive might be your hobby. I don't see the point of being able to unlock stripper footage in a game about BMXing, but I wouldn't protest it to keep others from playing. In fact, if you are buying it, I hope it's a good game. I don't like it when people protest shows to have them taken off the air. If you don't like it, that's why your TV has a power button, or a channel switch. People often think that freedom of speech means that they don't have to see a certain form of speech. It's the same with the "freedom from religion" people. There's a difference between not having religion shoved down your throat and trying to stop people from enjoying their right to practice.

As for child porn, that's illegal because the act itself is illegal. You can't film murders either, or arson.

The best part about the American Constitution is that it protects people across the board. Granted, we usually only see it defended by some of the most repugnant of people. Larry Flint isn't a champion of the people, he wanted to make money showing naked women. That's fine, but Larry's not Captain America.

People have to realize that there are things that are protected that they don't like, but that doesn't make them illegal or unprotected. Unless speech is dangerous (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal), slanderous (You can't call a guy a convicted murdered if he's not, that's why the news refers to people as "alleged murderers") or fraudulant. But you can say it if Joe Public in Topeka, KS doesn't think it's funny.

I may not like the Columbine patch, and I'd likely punch the sick punk that coded it if I ever saw him, but the First Amendment doesn't protect only speech in good taste.

And for the record, no I don't think violent video games are dangerous or harmful.

 

Larry Flint is one OF TEH BEST MEN EVER.


well in a wheelchair that is.

 

nicely said Wampa

i agree with you totally. people often misconstrue things. like the guy in California who is saying the Plege of Aliegance is unconstitutional. he has a right to do as he wishes, but he is attempting to force others to think his way. "Freedom of Religion" means that you have the right to chose and practice your religion, but you cant interfear with another persons. Simply stating that there is god or there is not is not a religion. you can say you are an Athiest, but that is not religion. simply saying god in something does not imply religion.

**End Rant**

anyway, like i said, you can publish what you want buit you should also be aware of the reactions of people. if they dont like it they are not going to buy it. instead of going out and publically criticizing the industry they should simply quitly ignor them.

Speak with your money, not your mouth.

 

I actually thought it was the other way around, and I live in Europe.

Could you give any examples?

Soldier of Fortune had blood and the "ghoul" engine, ghoul being ultra realistic body damage, removed mostly from the European version. Any and all Nazi references have to be removed from WW II games before they can be sold in Germany. Return to Castle Wolfenstein for example. Some companies will just sell the strictest version across all of Europe for simplicities sake.

 

The first amendment is the only thing more polluted than the great lakes...it's impact loses something when EA Games can appeal to it