Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 01:35, 2 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 01:40, 2 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
Next diff →
Line 38: Line 38:
*'''Depictions of violence should be subject to govt regs.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html Adam Liptak. "Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children." New York Times. June 27th, 2011]: "Depictions of violence, Justice Scalia added, have never been subject to government regulation. 'Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed,' he wrote, recounting the gory plots of 'Snow White,' 'Cinderella' and 'Hansel and Gretel.' High school reading lists and Saturday morning cartoons, too, he said, are riddled with violence." *'''Depictions of violence should be subject to govt regs.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html Adam Liptak. "Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children." New York Times. June 27th, 2011]: "Depictions of violence, Justice Scalia added, have never been subject to government regulation. 'Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed,' he wrote, recounting the gory plots of 'Snow White,' 'Cinderella' and 'Hansel and Gretel.' High school reading lists and Saturday morning cartoons, too, he said, are riddled with violence."
- +*'''Violent video games are defended by the first amendment.''' Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion defending the June 2011 Supreme Court ruling against the California ban on the sale of video games to minors: "Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html]

Revision as of 01:40, 2 July 2011

Is banning the sale of violent video games to minors justifiable?

Background and context

Arguments

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here




Con

  • Violent video games are defended by the first amendment. Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion defending the June 2011 Supreme Court ruling against the California ban on the sale of video games to minors: "Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."[1]


External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.