SCOTUS Appeal Watch: Violent video games should be limited for children

Posted by | May 3, 2010

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to review a case involving the censorship of video games—namely a controversial issue that involves prohibiting video game sales based on buyer age. Many bills and legislation drafted in this particular arena have failed due to poor design that did not take Constitutional law into account—so it’s interesting that the Supreme Court would like to hear this one.

IGDA, the International Game Developer’s Union, has issued a statement on this.

Limiting forms of expression in video games limits the expression of game creators, which violates their constitutional rights to free speech in the United States and abroad as specified by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the United Nations.

In the specific case of the state of California’s Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448, which is coming before the US Supreme Court this fall, the IGDA’s position is that limiting the sale of video games based on violence is oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research.

The IGDA is committed to the safety of children and supports fair and objective research on the effects of video games on the psychology of children and adults alike, as exemplified by the $1.5 million federally funded Harvard Medical study headed by Drs. Kutner & Olsen and provided to the public in Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. The IGDA stands behind informing parents about their media decisions and allowing them, rather than governmental bodies, to decide for their children.

Link see the full statement, via Gamepolitics.

We’ve also seen an article posted on the New York Advocate positing an opposing view. However, it falls to a lot of the problems listed in the very statement posted by the IGDA on this subject, so we’ll see where the editorials fly as time goes on.

Link, via the New York Advocate.


Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments