The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of California, saying that the state's law banning the sale of violent video games to children was a violation of the First Amendment. Click
here to watch a news report about the case.
Another interesting case came about this year that is reminiscent of the Tinker case. Read this
wire report to see what it was all about. Does the student's t-shirt meet the Tinker standard of "substantial disruption"? Or should he have a right to wear it under the First Amendment? The First Amendment is often problematic because it leaves questions of exactly what is protected speech open to debate. Yet the many freedoms it guarantees far outweigh its flaws. I welcome your thoughts about one or both of these cases. .
As an American Government teacher I noticed that the wire service story actually implies two keeping First Amendment rights-- Freedom of Expression v. Freedom of the Press. What about the editorial rights of the Yearbook? Or is it just an extension of the School Board? One thing I can assure you is that there is one "vice-principal" at Mercy who would not duck for cover and ignore a student email!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Supreme Court were right in favoring to the side of the Video Game industry. They cannot decide who to and who not to sell video games to. It should be a family based decisions, if parents feel that there children are mature enough to handle the violence in these games I think that they are inclined to buy them. I do not believe that violent games are right for young children to play, but I still think that the government does not have the right to stop selling them to kids.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan, and I believe that that is why almost all movies and videos are marked as to what age and maturity level something is appropriate for. Most parents wouldn't want to buy their kids a movie that will give their kids nightmares, and they probably wouldn't want to buy a game that is too graphic. But that doesn't mean that those kinds of movies and games shouldn't be made, because adults don't need to be put under the same constraints as children. Putting the rating on the case helps the consumer know if it would be appropriate for the audience in mind.
ReplyDeleteIn the video, they were talking about how violent video games were just the same as every other media (movies, books, etc.), but I completely disagree. With movies and books, you're only watching it, but with video games, you're making the decision to kill a person or steal a car or whatever. I know of a lot of parents who wouldn't even consider letting their child buy a game like that, but at the same time, there are a lot of parents who don't really care or don't understand what a violent video game can do to the mindset of a child. Exposing a child to that kind of violence at an early age can desensitize them to it.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I really do think that it is the parents decision on what their child sees. I don't think 8 year olds should be playing Call of Duty and then bragging to their friends about how they shot fifteen guys in the head last night, but it's the parents decision to filter that information. But a lot of parents don't really get video games. I mean, yeah, there's the rating system, but to a lot of people it's just a letter on a box.
I know that some parents do allow their children to watch movies and play video games that are not appropriate for their ages, and I do wish that this could be restricted, but I do not believe that it is right that they should be restricted. I would view this as an example of the first amendment covering something that I disagree with. I would prefer that speech I disagree with be protected than not my own speech protected.
ReplyDeleteI can see where the Supreme Court is coming from with their decision, and I have to agree with it as everyone else. Although, looking at a different perspective, I can see the the state of California is looking out for the future generation of America by censoring what they play so as to not corrupt them. Above all, however, I do agree that that is a parent's job.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Arlington High School debate over the "GOD IS DEAD" shirt, I do not think that Surber has a right to wear it. I think this t-shirt is far more disruptive than the Tinker black bracelet movement, Surber's shirt is too offensive and distracting for a school. The shirt can obviously be worn outside of school, but I think even public school's have guidelines and dress codes for their students. Public school's obviously don't have a religion class which is another reason why I think public display of one student's beliefs shouldn't be allowed.
I agree with my classmates that the supreme court was right and that it should be a family decision on which video games they can and cannot play however I think that the state of California had good intentions, video games do promote violence so I think that the violent games can be sold but with caution.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Case that is reminiscent to the Tinker case, I feel that the student who wore the t-shirt had his rights violated because the t-shirt itself was not causing any harm to others although he wanted to create a debate there was no disruption to others in the school or school activity. I do not like or support what the t-shirt said but I again feel that it was causing no harm to others even if they disagreed to what the t-shirt said.
To make it short and sweet, I believe that the government should not be able to restrict the media, which in this case is violent video games. But, it is not only the parents' job, as everyone above and the video said, but also the responsibility of the child. I believe that California is trying to help our generation and generations to come, to start making better decisions about what is acceptable and was is not.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jordan from Arlington High School has the right to wear his "GOD IS DEAD" t-shirt. I, personally, do not agree with this statement but as stated in the First Amendment; every United States citizen has the freedom of religious views, freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Jordan was nearly exercising these rights. I think it is wrong to not let Jordan wear the t-shirt in the group photo. If anything I think that the students who did not want to be associated with the t-shirt should have opted to be out of the group shot instead of Jordan having to not be in the photograph. In the end it is Jordan's choice to wear his this shirt. What is wrong with someone expressing their religious views via writing on a t-shirt?
ReplyDeleteI respect the decision the Supreme Court is making allowing violent video games to be sold to children but I do not agree with it. Although by choosing not to sell these video games to children could be considered "unlawful" I believe it is the governments job to step in. Obscenity comes into play I believe in a situation like this. With all of the Columbine situations occurring our government should be stopping any sort of things that would promote such activity. It has been speculated that massacres by teenagers could be due to the violent images they are INTERACTING with every day.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the "god is dead" t- shirt, I believe the school has the right to censor such a t-shirt. Due to the fact it is not a public printing press, but that of a school, I believe the school executives have the right to remove and image from their yearbook.
I agree with the decision that the Supreme Court made on the violent video games being sold to children. It is the parents responsibility to put restrictions on what games their kids can and can't play, not the government's. On the case with the "God is dead" tee shirts i believe that the school has the right to tell him not to wear the shirt because it is very offensive to those who believe in God. They have the right to retake the photo because as we learned, the school administration has the right to prior review.
ReplyDeleteI support the Supreme Court's decision to side with the video game industry. The choice of what children view and consume should be left up to the parents, as questionable as the material is. I also feel that, if they had banned them, children would still have found a way to get them. Concerning the "God is Dead" t-shirts. The students have a right to express that opinion, even though it is offensive to some.
ReplyDelete