While the question is based on the American Constitution (I don't know about the Freedom of Press policies in other countries), I am grateful for everybody's contribution. The main reason I am asking this question, is because of a research paper I am doing for my 12th grade English class, and I saw how most of the information about this topic is outdated by a couple of years. I also posted this in the debate forums because I want to know WHY people feel the way they do. Feel free to post anything you like so long as it follows the below rules: 1. Stay on topic please 2. Be respectful to others 3. Don't insult the opinions of others 4. Standard forum rules apply Thank all of you who post for your assistance
I think that the question is this- Why should video games not be protected under the first amendment?
i'm not asking why, that would imply that my belief is that they should be and i'm not giving you any room to argue against that, consider this a bit of a poll
The interesting thing about this topic is that the supreme court has stated that video games are protected under the first amendment as stated in the court ruling Brown vs. Entertainments Merchants Association in 2011. This was a result of California attempting to pass a bill that would limit the selling of violent video games to those under 18. In an oversimplification of the bill's intent it wanted California to treat violent video games like pornography. However the supreme court ruled video games as art and therefore they have the same rights as any other piece of art. This same discussion always pops up when a new form of media is introduced. First it was Opera, then it was Shakespeare, then film, comics, tabletop RPGs, and now video games. Eventually this court ruling will be widely accepted by the general public and we can go on with our lives. We are even seeing more art like games coming out like Spec Ops: The Line, and Metro 2033. So to answer the question, yes I believe that games should, and already do, fall under first amendment protection.
I think Rahau's intent was that the question as asked does not address the current reality. Presently, Video Games enjoy a certain level of protection under the first amendment. If they should not enjoy this protection, then why not? They already currently have it, so any argument against the status quo must necessarily be why shouldn't they have it? My personal opinion is that the current guidelines on ratings and how the games are handled is sufficient as it presently exists. No further protection is necessary, and no further restriction is necessary. I argue for the status quo. It is incumbent upon parents and other consumers to make educated decisions, take personal responsibility for the media they and their dependents consume, and not delegate this responsibility to a bureaucracy that would decide what is and is not fit for consumption, based on an ever lengthening and complex set of conditions.
As you said in the original post, this is about american constitution... So what if I'm french, and I don't know the first amendment ? So can you explain me this amendment ?
Very well, The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment gives the guaranteed freedom of speech, press, religion, and a few other freedoms. The aspect of the First Amendment I am focusing on is should video games be protected under the freedom of press? Also, you should know that the Amendments are CHANGES to the consitution, therfore, if the constitution has been changed in the pas,t it may be altered in the future, but it goes through a much more rigorous and harsh voting system that requires a near unanymous vote by the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court Judge.
The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, are not "changes to the constitution". They were rights taken for granted, put down in writing against some future day when someone, like yourself, would suggest that the rights are in fact privileges, and that if we want to get rid of them, we can. "The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property." "Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
