Video Game Hypo Analysis (1)

.docx

School

Pennsylvania State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

403

Subject

Communications

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DeaconRoseIbis29

Monique Morris COMM 403 Video Game Hypo Analysis The concept of keeping speech products away from minors is a constantly debate topic in modern-day government. In most cases, the government often seeks to keep certain speech products away from minors to minimize harm and protect their overall well-being. In other instances, the government may look to limit or restrict the number of interactions that children may have with a particular speech product, such as violent video games. As an example, highlighted in this week’s lesson module, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for a state to ban the sale of sexually explicit materials to juveniles, even though that very same material could legally be sold to adults. More recently, several states throughout the country attempted to enact a similar prohibition with respect to violent video games” (Lesson 2: Module: Violent Video Games). Even though in some cases, parents often authorize the use of these video games by purchasing the gaming consoles and the content, lawmakers still feel that necessary restrictions should be implemented. As a result, the government has encountered many legal obstacles or problems when trying to introduce and pass constitutional laws that limit, ban, or restrict the sale and usage of violent video games to minors. Bearing this in mind, I think that this week’s topic of exploring our hypothetical video game statute is an interesting dilemma in the law. According to our Hypo Public Act video game law, this statute details how exposing minors to violence in video games has an adverse effect on their mental and physical health. This statute argues that in exposure, minors are at risk of becoming lethargic, less apt to study, and more likely to become obese. Based on these statements, the statute argues that the state of Catalonia has an interest in preventing physical and psychological harm to minors who indulge in violent video games. After reading this initial part of the statute, I thought about the legal test of strict scrutiny and how it applies to this statute proposed by Catatonia. In utilizing this initial legal test, the government of Catatonia would be responsible for showing a “compelling governmental interest” in curbing this form of expression, specifically violent content. In conducting this legal test, the government would also have to indicate how they would plan to implement the “least restrictive means to achieve that interest” of effectively banning the sale of violent video games to those under the age of 18”. According to the statute, under section 2, the government could potentially pass this legal test because they would enact a “least restrictive” means of using a criminal penalty of one year in prison and fines of $5,000. My only issue with this statute completely passing the strict scrutiny test is the fact that section 2 also mentions that “Penalties against a person convicted under this section may be doubled if the violence in the video game was especially shocking or depraved”. This sub-section under section 2 creates some legal issues because it doesn’t provide an appropriate guideline for what defines a video game as “especially shocking or depraved”. Based on this sub-section, it would legally be hard for the government of Catatonia to smoothly pass the strict scrutiny test unless of course this section of the statute is amended adequately with realistic guidelines. The next legal test that I would like to discuss is how the vagueness doctrine could be implemented in this legal issue. As mentioned in both the module and text, the vagueness doctrine implies whether content, specifically in phrases, wording, and format, is too general or

indefinite to inform people of when and whether their conduct constitutes a violation of the law (Caristi, 2021). I think that in section 1 of this statute, this law would pass the vagueness doctrine because it clearly indicates what defines a “violent” video game. In Section 1, the government clearly defines a violent video game according to the vagueness doctrine of law as “being clear enough that people of ordinary intelligence should be able to read the language of the law and understand what speech (or in this case, what type of content) is being prohibited” (Lesson 2: Module: Violent Video Games). On the other side however, I should also mention that it would be hard for the government of Catatonia to implicate someone with a double penalty for this criminal offense of selling video games based on the level of shock or depravity. Since this statute doesn’t directly define what is considered highly shocking or depraved, it would be hard to argue and justify adding certain penalties to anyone convicted under section 1 of this statute. If this statute would amend this portion and define what is considered “especially shocking or depraved”, then that statute could be justifiable in a court of law regarding adding doubled penalties to a person convicted of this crime. Since this statute already clearly defined what a “Violent Video Game” is under this law, then it should easily and readily be able to provide an appropriate definition of content within a video game that is both “highly shocking” and capable of inflicting severe harm or trauma. Work Cited Caristi, Dom. Communication Law: Practical Applications in the Digital Age . 3rd ed., Routledge, 2021. Text within Lesson 2 Module

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help