First Amendment for Games
Syntax last edited by
I was actually at a panel at PAX East with Adam Sessler and the head of the ECA. Kind of interesting.
You will be seeing a banner posted on our Forums and the main GPG website for several months to come, stating "Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Game".
We have not sold this advertising spot, but have opted to use our site to help the Entertainment Consumers Association with something relevant to all American gamers that we feel very strongly about. Our right to gaming freedom as we feel should be protected by the First Amendment. Apologies to our international customers and fans for forcing you to view this regularly, but we hope you will understand that this could eventually be relevant to you as well if a precedent is set by the law faring poorly in our legal system.
The U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing the case of Schwarzenegger v. EMA late this year, or early next, and the verdict of the case will determine whether Games can enjoy the same First Amendment protection as other forms of entertainment media, or whether Games should be censored, controlled, and limited by government regulation as they have begun to in California.
If you are an American Gamer, and care about gaming and your rights, stand up and be counted by signing the petition. Don't let the games we love become the Prohibition of the 21st Century.
Full details about the Association, the upcoming Supreme Court case and the petition can be found here:
- Gas Powered Games
I can't believe this even is a case….
An interesting post Syntax,
My views are Libertarian (pro free market, family, nationhood and civil rights, like Ron Paul in the states or Daniel Hannan in the UK) so I can explain why its wrong to ban computer games on several grounds, in terms of the freedoms it violates.
- Freedom of expression means every individual has the right to express or exchange information or ideas with any individual or group unless such an action is an incitement to violence.
Prohibition of compter games means that a private individual (the computer game designers) will have their right to freedom of expression violated, which would be illiberal
- Freedom of thought means that each individual should be able to choose their own opinions, or views, free from the state or others acting in a coersive fashion,
If an individual is being told what they can and cannot like it means that their freedom of thought is being violated, so a ban on games would mean that freedom of thought equally is being attacked.
- Freedom of action means that an individual should be free to act in any manner they see fit, in so far as through action they do not cause harm to others. In this case playing computer games.
So there ya have it, banning games actually violates three very fundamental freedoms, thats why its wrong. Although games compared to most things in life are pretty trivial it doesnt matter, for violating rights isnt trivial at all.
If anyone is interested in understanding the philosophy of liberty look up John Stuart Mill and his ethic the harm principle on wikipedia. He was a English philosopher who contributed to british left liberalism (as oppossed to Marxism maskerading as liberalism), although many right liberals, or libertarians (including me) also consider his harm principle one of the most important ethics of liberty.