This is my Stanford Essay on Intellectual Vitality. Comments, Critques, etc. are welcome. Thanks!
While researching Supreme Court cases for "We The People," I was struck by the significance of Schwarzenegger v. EMA. The Supreme Court recently heard the oral arguments about banning the sale or rental of "deviant violent" video games to minors.
As a teenager who has spent considerable time playing video games, I was interested in this case because of the potential ban of popular games to teens - like Call of Duty. My first opinions were about how it is wrong to tell parents how to parent, that there are ratings and blocking mechanisms in place, and how will manufacturers decide which games are "violent."
But, after reading the oral arguments, I discovered that this case is also about Youth Rights, and how violence in technology will be defined when applying it to the First Amendment. If fictional, interactive violence is classified as an obscenity in the Court's opinion, violent, "low value" speech will no longer be protected by the First Amendment and young people, especially teens, could lose additional rights as a result.
Justice Ginzburg posed the question: If video games are "a category of violent materials dangerous to children," then "what about films? What about comic books?" If the Court's opinion is to treat video violence as an obscenity, the effect could be far reaching, possibly censoring a teen's right to view violent movies, listen to violent lyrics or even watch violent cartoons.
Defending First Amendment rights demonstrates what is great about our country and the Supreme Court is key in its defense. The Court's opinion, using historical precedents, will define the First Amendment as it relates to our technology driven twenty-first century. The Court's opinion, due by June, could change the future of free speech.
While researching Supreme Court cases for "We The People," I was struck by the significance of Schwarzenegger v. EMA. The Supreme Court recently heard the oral arguments about banning the sale or rental of "deviant violent" video games to minors.
As a teenager who has spent considerable time playing video games, I was interested in this case because of the potential ban of popular games to teens - like Call of Duty. My first opinions were about how it is wrong to tell parents how to parent, that there are ratings and blocking mechanisms in place, and how will manufacturers decide which games are "violent."
But, after reading the oral arguments, I discovered that this case is also about Youth Rights, and how violence in technology will be defined when applying it to the First Amendment. If fictional, interactive violence is classified as an obscenity in the Court's opinion, violent, "low value" speech will no longer be protected by the First Amendment and young people, especially teens, could lose additional rights as a result.
Justice Ginzburg posed the question: If video games are "a category of violent materials dangerous to children," then "what about films? What about comic books?" If the Court's opinion is to treat video violence as an obscenity, the effect could be far reaching, possibly censoring a teen's right to view violent movies, listen to violent lyrics or even watch violent cartoons.
Defending First Amendment rights demonstrates what is great about our country and the Supreme Court is key in its defense. The Court's opinion, using historical precedents, will define the First Amendment as it relates to our technology driven twenty-first century. The Court's opinion, due by June, could change the future of free speech.