Nice comic from Penny Arcade

[Saviolo]

Of course, they make their bread and butter from reviewing and talking about video games, etc... so they have a vested interest, but they've always talked about how silly it is to blame video games for violence in society.

Here's their comic (comment) on the subject:

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/12/24

[abelenkpe]

1. well drawn too. nt

[Saviolo]

2. You just know...

when they take a break from the usual comic violence and swearing that they're really trying to -say- something. Also, art upgrade.

[unblock]

3. it's not destroying the first amendment to assign blame.

now, legislating violence out of the media, videogames, etc.? yes, that would run up against the first amendment.

but simply to say that these are contributing factors (in these rare but sensational situations that have numerous contributing factors) and urging them to engage in a bit of introspection and voluntarily change their ways, that's not a first amendment problem at all. in fact, that's exactly the CORRECT use of the first amendment.


the first amendment is NOT freedom from criticism.

[Saviolo]

4. Doesn't it follow

that the people blaming violent video games are looking for stricter control of such? I don't feel like it would be such a strong talking point if they weren't trying to lead it somewhere.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/ingame/fight-over-violent-video-games-far-over-122543

That's NBC reporting on a California law that was struck down as unconstitutional about banning sale of violent video games to children, though it's an old story.

There's no way this Senator:
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/12/21/senator-proposes-bill-to-study-violence-in-games
just wants more warning labels on violent video games.

I don't think young children should be playing hack and slash violent video games (that's for me!), but that's a function of the parents and the content warnings on the packages. Also, the NRA continually says that there should not be tighter restrictions on the ownership of guns because of the 2nd Amendment, but are okay with tighter restrictions on the ownership of video games? It's a little counter-intuitive.

[unblock]

5. well, sure, i suppose SOME people are calling for a legislative solution

a legislative solution could certainly run afoul of the first amendment, or it could be carefully limited so as to avoid that problem.

or the solution could be a non-legislative one.

comics can be blunt instruments, and in this case this important distinction is lost; it just goes directly from talking about blame to asserting that it's destroying the first amendment.


also, the nra is first and foremost an industry lobby, so of course they're going to say whatever is in the interest of gun manufacturers. beyond that, i'm sure they would argue that gun rights are in the constitution, whereas video game rights are not. perhaps this is counter-intuitive from a policy perspective, but not from a constitutional one, at least if you buy the nra/scalia interpretation of the second amendment.