1/1/2023 0 Comments Jfk reloaded modsSpending hour upon hour controlling the actions of a character who guns down scores of innocent victims is not different in “kind” from reading a description of violence in a work of literature. In the view of the Court, all those concerned about the effects of violent video games-federal and state legislators, educators, social scientists, and parents-are unduly fearful, for violent video games really present no serious problem. The opinion of the Court exhibits none of this caution. And we should not hastily dismiss the judgment of legislators, who may be in a better position than we are to assess the implications of new technology. We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar. We should take into account the possibility that developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time. We should make every effort to understand the new technology. In considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology, this Court should proceed with caution. I disagree, however, with the approach taken in the Court’s opinion. Although the California statute is well intentioned, its terms are not framed with the precision that the Constitution demands, and I therefore agree with the Court that this particular law cannot be sustained. The California statute that is before us in this case represents a pioneering effort to address what the state legislature and others regard as a potentially serious social problem: the effect of exceptionally violent video games on impressionable minors, who often spend countless hours immersed in the alternative worlds that these games create.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |