Over at GameTopius, paralegal-in-training Nikhil Baliga (who also has degrees in Political Science and Psychology) serves up a look at First Amendment issues as they relate to games.
While Baliga does a nice job of tracing some of the major case law, the article's main points could be stated with more clarity. This paragraph, for example, seems to imply that video games are not necessarily constitutionally-protected speech (they are):
What well intentioned, but usually ill informed, video game advocates often assume is that video games are constitutionally protected free speech. While there can be no doubt that video games are speech, the Supreme Court has stated that not all speech is constitutionally protected.
Later, Baliga explains that this is a reference to video games which might be considered legally obscene under the so-called Miller Test. The fact is, however, that the likelihood of that happening in the U.S. market, given the ESRB rating system, console licensing requirements and screening by major retailers, is roughly nil.
While there could be a non-commercial game or import (say, RapeLay) that might - might - meet the Miller obscenity standard, implying that commercial video games are not protected speech is roughly akin to saying that Hollywood movies aren't necessarily protected speech because there are also kiddie porn films.
Still in all, worth a read.
GP: Readers should note that Baliga is not a lawyer and neither is GP. So, take both opinions with the appropriate grain of salt.
Comments
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
-breaks in the front door to this chat room-
"GUYS! GUYS! I heard someone say RAPELAY! WE SHOULD DISCUSS THIS."
Joking, please don't. ><;
"HEY! LISTEN!"
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Hi everyone, my name is Nikhil Baliga and I wrote the article that GP posted.
'd like to say, before anything else, that I'm a huge fan of Gamepolitics and I read it every day. In fact, it was GP (and Law of the Game) that inspired me to start my own column.
Naturally, I was very flattered when I learned that GP was linking to my article. Unfortunately, I have to take issue with the post about it since it seems to misrepresent my article. The setnances highlighted are taken somewhat out of context. I wrote that because of forums I see where posters assume that games ARE protected by the first amendment when, in truth, most have no idea whether they are or not (they may, like me, think they SHOULD be, but that is beside the point).
For example, before I began research for this article, I was completely unaware whether or not video games were protected, and so was nearly everyone I talked to, both attorneys and laypersons. In retrospect, I would revise the section for clarity but I feel that the decision to present these two sentences as the main thesis completely misconstrues my article.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
I understood what you meant though me being on the incoherent side of things means I can sometimes understand incoherent things... LOL
IE games like anything else are not 100% protected free speech, nothing is fully protected there are always shades of gray.
I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.
---
http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
I see the point he is trying to make, but still a stupid article.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
"While there can be no doubt that video games are speech, the Supreme Court has stated that not all speech is constitutionally protected."
Go fuck yourself
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
That really isn't a false statement.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
No it is not false but a misrepresented statement like that could be 10 times worse. A liar tells lies but a good liar mixes both truth and lie.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Read the entire article and his theme is that it is possible that some games can be found obscene in the same way other mediums can. If someone were to make a game that would be considered obscene according to the Miller test, it could be regulated.
This is something that I have been saying for a while.
The main issue with games and legislation is whether violence can be considered obscene. So far all courts have sided with the games industry stating that violence cannot be a measure of obscenity.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Seems rather odd to write an article about this though. I think the response from anybody on GP to the statement that 'an obscene (legal definition) game could be regulated' would be a resounding 'No shit sherlock'.
Where did Baliga get the idea that gamers think that under no circumstances could a video game ever be banned/regulated/whatever? The gist of the article seems to be that a video game is not exempt from being subjected to the Miller test.
Duh?
EDIT: I forgot to mention, I find the entire idea of an obscenity law ridiculous anyway. Is it not easy enough to stick with the idea that your right to free speech ends when it effects other people's rights? Seems pretty straightforward to me. And since it is not a human right to not be offended, anything and everything should be allowed to be portrayed in a video game.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one book, movie, game, or image being declared obscene by the miller test would not make all books, movies, games, or images obscene.
So he justifies his statement that games aren't protected speech on the basis that one game could be declared obscene.
He is an idiot.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Technically, he's just saying the blanket statement "video games are protected speech" is false, since individual ones can fail. He never said this meant all video games were obscenes, he just phrased it awkwardly.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Then what was his point in singling out videogames for his article.
Why did he even bother to write it at all?
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Awkward phrasing probably isn't a good thing for a paralegal-in-training to be doing.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Dunno, the ability to communicate an idea without your audience realizing what you've said seems like a valuable tool for a laywer.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
Damn, beat me to the point....
It was a rather perplexing statement. Of course anything that falls under first ammendment exemptions is not protected. That is why they are excemptions. The media is irrelevent.
If someone made a game that was blatent defamation it would be just as exempt as a movie/book/article/etc that did so.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
"...not all speech is constitutionally protected."
Yeah, and all men are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
OBJECTION!
*Slams desk. Points finger.*
That only applies to defamatory statements that are not true. For example, calling some a pedophile in front of a crowd when they're not and have never been accused of such. However, defamatory statements are protected if they are true.
"That's not ironic. That's justice."
Re: Video Games and the First Amendment
If they are true, then for 1st ammendment purposes they are not defamation.