Friday, July 08, 2011

Sex, Violence and the Supreme Court majority

Timothy Egan writes about the Supreme Court case that found unconstitutional a California ban on selling violent video games to minors while keeping in place laws that prevent the sale of nudity to minors. Justice Stephen Breyer asked,
What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively but virtually binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? …

What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only if the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?
It's Scilia who is really sick.
So what if children’s active minds are engaged in decisions in which people are dismembered, decapitated, disemboweled, set on fire and chopped into little pieces.
Apparently it's ok as long as certain parts of their bodies are covered.

I tend not to favor restricting speech, but if it is to be restricted it makes no sense, as Egan put it, that "children should be free to slice a clothed Godiva to bits — on screen — but should be shielded from seeing her as she was when she rode through the streets of Coventry."

1 comment:

rar said...

The Cali law is stupid. It is overkill. There are already restrictions on 13 years olds buying violent games. Its called the ESRB. And guess what? It works. Its actually harder to buy games in some cases than an R rated movie. 3 separate investigations (one by the FCC) has already proved ESRB. I swear. People who make these laws do always bring down the ESRB. Guess what, its the parents fault. The industry is doing their jobs self regulating. Parents are just stupid in buying games for their kids not realizing the violence inside. They need to smart up and catch up with the times instead of blaming their failures on others.
Gamer since a kid (some violent ones) with kids.