There's No Consistency With the Court

On June 27, 2012 with a 7 to 2 vote the Supreme Court struck down a California law that restricted the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Although many of the justices were disturbed by the games like Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Combat and others, in which the player can kill, rape, maim, shoot Kennedy in the head, and reenact Columbine, they considered it free speech. They said – Governments might be able to restrict sexual material but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. The court found no creditable evidence linking playing the games to violent behavior. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," wrote Justice Scalia; he noted that books often viewed as suitable for high school students are full of violent material. "Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore.” On June 21 with an 8-0 vote, the Supreme Court addressed broadcast networks (not cable) getting 6 figure fines for improper language and exposure (wardrobe malfunctions) during primetime TV. The 2nd Circuit struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) indecency policy in July 2010, ruling that the standards did not give broadcasters enough guidance to know what words were permitted or not. The FCC is cracking down on broadcast profanity and nudity and appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices threw out the US appeals court ruling that struck down the policy on speech grounds and said several options are before the commission, including reviewing the current policy and modifying it. The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 on narrower grounds that the FCC's indecency policy was a rational and legally permissible use of the FCC's administrative powers, but did not reach the free-speech issue at that time. In the cases just decided, the networks had asked the high court to overturn its 1978 ruling that upheld the FCC's power to regulate indecency in a case about comedian George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue on radio, arguing the media landscape had changed dramatically. In a one-paragraph opinion it said the 1978 decision was wrong when it was issued. "Time, technological advances and the commission's untenable rulings in the cases now before the court show why" the 1978 ruling should be reconsidered, Ginsburg wrote. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said the agency should quickly implement the Court's decision and move on to address a backlog of nearly 1.5 million pending indecency complaints, dating as far back as 2003 and involving some 9,700 TV broadcasts. Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications at the National Association of Broadcasters said viewers can continue to expect broadcast programming to be less explicit than pay-TV offerings despite the ruling in their favor.

I guess the Court didn’t hear that Psychology Today said the negative effects of TV have been well documented including violent behavior, reduction in reading, decreased physical activity, increased obesity and negative impact on sleep, including total sleep time and quality (Sara Gilbert in 2011 on the Talk said a study found kids saw 16,000 murders and 200,000 violent acts on TV by the time they’re 18). I’m thinking that allowing children to see more violence via the video games will only increase the violent behavior that has already been documented. At one time, I thought there was a law that said there had to be children shows on during the early evening but I guess this went to the wayside along with other laws. I do believe that it’s up to the parents to determine what kids watch and play however some guidance via appropriate ratings would be helpful in parents making such decisions. We have movie, TV and game ratings to assist parents in determining what should be prohibited. However, lately I haven’t seen many ratings coming up prior to the start of the shows I watch.

If the Court doesn’t want to restrict exposure perhaps the legislature should regulate the percentage of good versus evil choices that are available and relook at the current rating system because I don’t find it reasonable (if kids are not to have sex until 18 than they shouldn’t be watching it sooner; this same logic applies to the shooting of guns and the drinking of alcohol). It seems we now allow younger children to see more sexual and violent acts than before. If games used water, marshmallow, and paintball guns that don’t look real they should be okay for kids. It would be practical to offer more children shows (bring back something like Lassie) and non violent games as alternatives. I’m somewhat confused with our freedom of speech which I hold dear as it allows me to write this. The Court said we can restrict sexual material then I don’t understand why we cannot restrict the violence children are exposed to. I believe we changed restrictions so younger kids don’t see people smoking cigarettes-which I don’t believe is as bad as seeing someone die. On July 16 on the View it was said teenage high school girls are reading the 50 Shades of Grey (2011 erotic novel by British author E. L. James; the first in a trilogy that traces the deepening relationship between a 22 year old college graduate and a young business magnate; it’s noted for its explicit erotic scenes featuring elements of sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism) and movies are to follow. We have a banned book list – the government needs to relook at its list and remove those that no longer apply to this generation and add those that are missing.

We need consistency with all entertainment media-books, games, magazines, TV, movies, etc.