Video Games and the First Amendment

July 10, 2009 -

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

"GP: Readers should note that Baliga is not a lawyer and neither is GP. So, take both opinions with the appropriate grain of salt." That's okay. Neither is WackyJack. ...because someone had to say it.

Re: Video Games and the First Amendment

-breaks in the front door to this chat room-

"GUYS! GUYS!  I heard someone say RAPELAYWE SHOULD DISCUSS THIS."

Joking, please don't.  ><;

"HEY! LISTEN!"

"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. 

 
First, there is a footnote I added which states a very famous quote from Justice Holmes on precisely WHY not all speech is constitutionally protected. I put this footnote in specifically because I wanted to relax knee jerk reactions against any restriction to free speech which, let's face it, most most young fans of video games, like myself, often have. 
 
Second, it leaves out the sentence after specifically explaining that, for decades, the courts did NOT find that video games were constitutionally protected. (See footnote number 2)
 
Most importantly, it does not explain that a good third of the article is devoted to showing that recent case law has held that video games enjoy the same first amendment protection as other forms of speech (literature, film, television, art etc). 
 
You may have got the idea from the pthat I am ...implying that commercial video games are not protected speech..." I never implied such a thing in my article. In fact, a significant part of it goes into detail about how case law says this is NOT true. (on page 2):"All in all, it would seem that the court has sided with the video game industry: Modern video games, with their stories, characters, and themes, are protected by the First Amendment like movies and books would be. (emphasis added)"
 
It should also be noted that it is my theory that "The other major reason [for the lack of obscenity prosecutions against distributors of video games] is [that]the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board (ESRB).[19] The refusal of major retailers, such as Walmart and Gamestop, to stock games rated “Adults Only” by the ESRB creates a financial handicap; almost ensuring that no game will be produced by a major developer that will test the boundaries of the Miller Test for obscenity." Much like GP says, though I would like to clarify that i made that point in the article. 
 
 
Finally, I agree that there are problems with clarity in the article and there is room for improvement. Truthfully, this is my first major article I have written for publication anywhere, whether online or in print. Up until now, I have written only academic papers and some fiction for fun in my spare time (I have written two small pieces for Gametopius as well but I was working on all three at roughly the same time). I would hope you all would understand and allow me a little slack as I am still learning the ropes and am trying to build on my experiences.
 
Thank you,
Nikhil Baliga

 

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

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.

-------------------------------------------------- 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."

"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.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightWii U Games finding Solidarity with PC Gamers :(08/19/2014 - 6:09pm
Zenbuy all of the bad DLC before they even showed the main content everyone was waiting for. I paid for it, I wanted it, and I got tossed aside.08/19/2014 - 4:10pm
ZenIanC: Yep, both Call of Duty games did the same thing holding back all DLC and then releasing the day one map 2 YEARS later out of the blue. Why play what they won't support. Warner Bros canceled their DLC after promising it because Wii U owners didn't08/19/2014 - 4:09pm
Andrew EisenShe's the developer of Depression Quest. It's an interesting game (although I wouldn't call it fun) and you can check it out for free at depressionquest.com.08/19/2014 - 2:48pm
Sleakerwhat's all this Zoe quinn stuff all over and should I even bother looking it up?08/19/2014 - 2:37pm
IanCExactly Zen. The third one had random delays to the DLC and they just came out seemingly at random with no warning, and the 4th they didn't even bother.08/19/2014 - 2:31pm
ZenI may have bought both AC games on Wii U, but WHY would anyone be expected to get the game when they came out MONTHS before release that they were skipping DLC and ignoring the game? They poisoned the market on themselves then blamed Nintendo players.08/19/2014 - 1:27pm
Papa MidnightIn review, that's fair, Andrew. I just tend to take Gawker articles with a lot of salt, and skepticism.08/19/2014 - 12:07pm
Matthew WilsonFor one has a English speaking support team for devs. Devs have said any questions they have, were translated in to Japanese. then back in to English. 08/19/2014 - 11:41am
Adam802they need to realize the "wii-fad" era is pretty much over and start rebooting some old great franchises like they are doing with star fox08/19/2014 - 11:39am
Adam802unfortunatly, this seems to represent 3rd party's position on the wiiU in general. Nintendo has always sucessfully relied on 1st party but now since 3rd parties and console "power" are so important this gen, they're in trouble.08/19/2014 - 11:38am
IanCOkay, so what can Nintendo do to these 3rd parties? Huh? If a company release games late with missing content then of course it won't sell. Seems simple to me.08/19/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenSakurai and Co. REALLY need to go back in there and re-pose Samus. She is so incredibly broken.08/19/2014 - 11:06am
ZippyDSMleeUntill Nin starts paying out the azz or doing much much more to help 3rd party games development, the WIIU is dead in the water.....08/19/2014 - 11:03am
ZippyDSMleehttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=316135481893472&id=22417313775637408/19/2014 - 11:02am
ZippyDSMlee*gets out the popcorn* this will be fun08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenIt's not as simple as "Nintendo gamers don't buy AC games."08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenACIII was late, missing DLC (so was IV) and was on a brand new platform that had never had the series competing against two platforms that had an install base of 80 million a piece who had all the previous games.08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenI'd say TechDirt is being a bit unfair towards Kotaku's article to the point of slightly mischaracterizing it. It's not really bad but, while a little muddled, neither is the Kotaku article.08/19/2014 - 10:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician