Details of the United States Anti-Violence Game Act of Supreme Court trial

This week, the justices of the United States Supreme Court are about to usher in their first ever case of video games. We will take a comprehensive look at and follow up on the unprecedented and protracted debate on the scale of the anti-violence game.　　Before that, let's review the cause of the incident and pave the way for subsequent reports.　　Is it true that the United States Supreme Court will hear the debate on the anti-video game bill this week? That's right. The California State government will have a debate with the entertainment business Coalition and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, the E3 host), which is what is commonly known as the American gaming industry's giants.　　The time is the U.S. Eastern Time November 2 10 o'clock in the morning, in the United States Supreme Court, hearing judges including Justices Robert, Thomas and others.　　What is the focus of this debate? The main focus of the debate between the local government and the entertainment media giants will be "whether the content of violence should be treated as equally as pornography".　　To be more clear, it is whether to allow the sale of game software containing violent content to minors in the United States.　　Like the R-class movies in America? Not too. The so-called R-rated films, in the United States, are actually allowing children to watch under parental guidance, although this in itself is in conflict with the standards set by the American film industry. In fact, in the United States, only films that are prohibited by law from being broadcast and disseminated to minors are those that contain obscene plots, which account for a very small percentage of films in the United States and are not allowed to spread to anyone of any age, not just minors. The classification criteria for such films were made by the United States Supreme Court in the 60 's.　　Now, the California government's anti-Violence game bill aims to treat video games that contain violent content by treating such extreme pornographic films.　　Whose idea was this? Local governments in California and some other states are the main advocates of the programme.　　They have been trying to get the bill passed a few years ago.　　What's the cause of it? About 6 years ago, California State Congressman Leland Yee, a psychologist, started a game of anti violence in California. He believes that the harmful effects of violent games on children are far more serious than in other traditional media. In 2005, he proposed a bill that would impose a fine of 1000 dollars on retailers who sell to minors a game containing extremely violent content.　　Later, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, formally signed the bill later that year.　　So kids in California can't play violent games? That's not it.　　After the California anti-Violence game bill was signed, the gaming industry filed a joint lawsuit, ending with a local court sentence that violated the interpretation of the First Amendment on freedom of expression in the United States Constitution, and thus did not actually become legislation.　What does the so-called "extreme violence game" mean?　According to Leland Yee and supporters of his anti-Violence Game Act, the most frequently cited example of extreme violence is a 2003 game called "The 2 (Postal 2)" (see chart).　　This is a first-person perspective shooting game, which does contain a considerable amount of violent content.　　"The Bullet in the Street 2" game screenshot If the "2" is considered extreme violence, then "God of War" and "Call of duty" such a game is also difficult to escape? It's hard to say, but the California law's censorship standard for banning the sale of games to minors does include descriptions of such things as "allowing players to create virtual harm to a human image or a similar role with obvious human behavior characteristics, in particular to victims of massive, cruel or degrading torture or bodily harm,"　　So the two well-known game brands are likely to be within the bounds of extreme violent gaming.　　Why would the Supreme Court be involved in this? This is a problem that everyone desperately wants to know, especially for the industry giants defending violent games. In fact, the gaming industry has never tasted a failure in the court battles of the past few years, so states, including California, have so far not imposed any form of legal sanction on the sale of violent games to minors.　　Now, for the Leland Yee led supporters of the anti-violence game, is repeatedly defeated and repeatedly defeated after the defeat of the last chance to draw a innings.　　Does the Supreme Court not really criminalize the sale of violent games?　　It now appears to be possible that, although there are no laws restricting the sale of entertainment products containing violent content to minors, the Supreme Court has the final decision, so that they can make a decision to limit the gaming industry through this case, without violating the constitution of the United States.　　If the anti-violence game bill passes will it also affect the movie? It is likely that this is why, after the news of the Supreme Court hearing, the film industry, the comic publishing industry and the music industry have signed a letter expressing support for the gaming industry, from the perspective of Microsoft, from the ACLU to the US commercial trade union.　　The so-called dependent, this is the truth.　　What if the Supreme Court were to support the government of California? First, the sale of violent games to minors will be considered illegal, but the impact is even more far-reaching.　　Representatives of the gaming industry worry that laws that sell violent games will make retailers more conservative in selling products, directly affecting publishers and developers to play creatively when developing games, and fear that the content of the game will be judged as excessive violence.　　Will Tuesday be an important day for American players? Yes, but not last. Although part of the debate will begin in Tuesday, the final verdict of the court is likely to wait until June next year. (Digging the shell net)