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.
Hi, what an interesting case! I enjoyed reading your essay- it taught me about a significant case. But what I wanted to know was your opinion on it. I wish you'd have created an argument for/against (most likely towards keeping call of duty) and why.
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."Reword (don't say "my first opinions were..." Perhaps "To have the government interfere upon my favorite passtime... upset me..."
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. <- Here, you're saying that you realized the significance of this supreme court case. I really wish you could add your opinion here! :) 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?" nice... elaborate more on how absurd the case is 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. <- again, opinion!!!
I hope my critique helped! If you would like to critique my essay as well, it is titled "important issues in the field of psychology" - stanford: intellectual experience in the link below~ thanks
My first thoughts on the argument , were that it's wrong to tell parents how to parent, that there are ratings and blocking mechanisms in place, and anyway, how will manufacturers decide which games are "violent."----You don't need the word 'anyway' there, but I thought it went well. :)
... possibly censoring a teen's right to view violent movies, listen to violent lyrics or even to watch violent cartoons.
Defending First Amendment rights demonstrates what is great about our country, and the Supreme Court is key in its defense.
Very interesting essay, also informative!
p.s. Call of Duty Black Ops is awesome!
:)
