Video game violence and sexuality has been a major issue since the beginning of the industry. To understand in a litigation aspect one should be familiarized with Entertainment Software, Video Software Dealers (VSDA), and Illinois Retail Merchants Associations (The Plaintiff’s) vs. Rod Blagojevich (The Defendant) case. First, one should briefly understand the argument, then to why the act is vaguely unconstitutional. Also as to why the restrictions on violent and sexually explicit video games are unconstitutional, and finally what the states results were. Video games are not the cause of violence, is it other factors that exist to make a person violent.
One should understand what the purpose and main argument was. Under the Illinois Public Act 94-0315, the restrictions on violent and sexually explicit video games are viewed to be unconstitutional. Due to this unconstitutional act, the Plaintiff’s were entitled to a preliminary injunction. A “preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that is invoked to preserve the subject matter in its existing condition… and its main purpose is to prevent termination of the plaintiff's rights” (Farlex). If the act were allowed to be permitted, it would inflict sanctions that would violate the right to free expression, under the first amendment. With the challenge to the acts restrictions, on the issue, with regards to the first amendment, the state recognized that strict scrutiny applied. The state also claims that it could not prove any of these allegations, and had no response to the claims of the plaintiffs. The first amendment was put into place to prevent a state or government, from controlling an individual’s, thoughts, feelings and viewpoints.
Strict scrutiny is a “standard of Ju...
... middle of paper ...
...lent Video Games Law, and Sexually Explicit Video Games Law.
In conclusion, video games are not the sole contributor to violence. Throughout the case, one can conclude that certain amendments were violated. Those amendments were the first and fourteenth. What was violated was the freedom of expression and speech. While sexual content in video games can be harmful to minors, they can access it through other means; for example television, movies, internet and media. These other forms of contextual information can cause violence, with enough exposure to them. In the end the laws were a violation of the constitution and no evidence could be brought to light. The court was in favor of the plaintiff’s and prevented the used of these laws again. Violence is everywhere; it is how an individual absorbs, and interprets it that makes that person’s personality.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
The case that I chose to analyze is Reno v. ACLU. It is the first Internet related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided. Seven of the justices found the argued provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the Internet is similar to a shopping mall or library not a broadcast medium as the government refered to it. The majority opinion for this case was that the Internet is a unique marketplace for ideas. The ruling states that while there is a large amount of pornographic material out there, it normally isn’t come across on accident. They stated that the CDA already holds back a good amount of speech that is alright for adult to adult conversations, which they do have a constitutional right to receive. While they recognize the CDA efforts to protect children from harmful speech and pornographic material, it still does not justify the unnecessarily broad suspension of speech. The final outcome was that they found that what the CDA was trying to do would violate speakers messages who are rightfully protected under the First Amendment.
Reasons/Analysis: Since certain materials have a high risk in being offensive, the Court decided that states
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
The other purpose of this act was to “Provide result of a general or neutral law. ”(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, If the government can demonstrate the following three things, that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest, but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees.
...ts, detailed explanation, and the First Amendment to show how the policy of the armbands goes against the First Amendment. As for Justice Hugo Black, he uses facts and other case decisions to explain why the policy is permissible under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Black does not explain, in elaborate detail, the facts included nor a strong reasoning behind why he believes the policy is allowed. While Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black did include strong points, Justice Abe Fortas was more convincing with his argument. For Justice Abe, every point connected, and the main points introduced were further developed through the case facts, the District Court’s decision, and other case decisions. There is a fluency that Justice Fortas had, which was not present in Justice Black’s dissenting opinion. Justice Black seemed jumpy, and his organization was confusing.
It was irrational for these students to be suspended from the school. The high school students named John F. Tinker, who was fifteen-years-old, John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, who was thirteen-years-old, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt, who was sixteen years old, should not have been suspended. They were under the protection of the First Amendment. The parents of those students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expressions and sought an injunction to prevent the school from decupling the students. The Supreme Court of the United Sates stepped in and the question of law was if. They ruled in the favor of the Tinker’s because it was in a seven to two decision "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District."
The allegation that videogames cause violent behavior in children has been present as long as videogames themselves. Some researchers said that the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, was one intense gamer. “Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech Shooter was seen by his roomates as odd because he never joined them in video games.”(Beresin) This debate will continue to go on in this country as long as there are horrific crimes that occur. There is much written in the research regarding this issue, and many differing views. The research that is presented in the next few paragraphs supports the theory that it is not the graphic video games that produce aggressive behavior, but other factors in a child’s life that create violent actions.
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
Video games have been a rapidly expanding industry since their inception in the 1970s. Along with their growth have come concerns about violent video games and their effects on aggression and violence in young people. The endless numbers of school shootings have pushed this issue to the forefront. These events brought about the question: do violent video games induce aggression in youth? That’s the question I set out to answer by looking at research. The research shows that there is a link between playing video games and increases in aggression in adolescents. What implications does this fact have ethically? It means that video game producers and distributors need to be held responsible for their releases and the way they end up in the hands of kids.
Video games have been a growing industry for about 30 years and has never been bigger. As a whole, the industry made around $66 billion last year, and is expected to make even more this coming year. Because of this growth, gamers have sought better graphics, better stories, and even more violence. Developers have satisfied this want with more M rated games that include heavier violence, stronger language, sexual themes, and intense blood and gore. Past acts and laws have been put in place to try and eliminate violence in video games. These laws have stiffled the industry's freedom of expression and caus...
“Contrary to the claims that violent video games are linked to aggressive assaults and homicides, no evidence was found to suggest that this medium was a major (or minor) contributing cause of violence in the United States.” (Markey, 290)