ACLU, Antonin Scalia on the same side

[AlpsStranger]

The ACLU page now has a statement up about the violent video game blaming going on.

Worst Facts Make Worst Law with Violent Video Games
By Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 2:43pm

It’s perfectly understandable that after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., everyone is casting about for an answer to a singular question: why?

As past is prologue, we shouldn’t be surprised that several members of Congress have settled on media violence as the possible culprit, noting stories that Adam Lanza may have “obsessively” played Starcraft and Call of Duty. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is reportedly circulating legislation mandating a study on youth exposure to violent video games.

We shouldn’t move too quickly because of lingering trauma from last week. These are the worst facts, and they will make the worst law if we let them.

Media violence has long been a target of lawmakers seeking a cheap and politically cost-free way to address crimes committed by young people. Calls for studies, hearings, self-censorship, or even actual censorship are easy. Most folks aren’t going to go out of their way to defend stuff that panders to the baser instincts, and lawmakers look like they’re doing something proactive to get at the problem. This is the story that’s played itself out now for decades, all the way back to the 1920s, when movie censorship sought to protect kids by limiting depictions of, for instance, any “inference of sex perversion” and miscegenation.

The problem is, without a mind-reading device, it’s virtually impossible to identify a causal link between exposure to media and any kind of action in the real world. This is doubly true when you’re talking about children’s exposure to violence.

First, lots of people play video games. Simply pointing out that some people who play video games commit violent acts is like saying that because people in prison like television, television must cause crime.

Second, it is certainly possible that people who are predisposed to violent conduct gravitate toward video games that depict violent acts. This is a chicken-and-egg question. As the Supreme Court pointed out (in a decision overturning a California state law criminalizing sales of violent video games to minors), even the psychologists who claim a causal link are only able to come up with weak evidence of correlation. And correlation is not causation. Note that this problem also applies to the slightly more complex question of whether violent video games will make already violent individuals more violent.

The chicken-and-egg question is one of effectiveness; that is, it suggests that even if you prevent kids from playing violent video games, you won’t prevent violence. That’s probably true. But it’s also worth reflecting on why it might actually be unwise to let anyone other than parents make decisions about children’s access to depictions of violence.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in the violent video games case, and he made much of the fact that video games aren’t uniquely violent. In doing so, he cited Grimm’s Fairy Tales (which are simply brutal if you’ve ever read the originals), the Odyssey, Dante’s Inferno, and (notably) Lord of the Flies.

His main point here was that there’s no “longstanding tradition” of restricting children’s access to depictions of violence; had there been one, it might have bolstered California’s argument that the government has an interest in regulating access. That is certainly true, but there’s a larger point that Justice Scalia did not expressly make: sometimes depictions of violence in media consumed by children have cultural and social worth. Lord of the Flies, for example, a book graphically depicting child-murder by children, is required reading in many schools.

Now, why does that matter? Because if it’s true that depictions of violence have cultural, literary or social merit independent of the violence, the government shouldn’t be in the business of policing access, be it by children or adults. If the depiction of violence triggers the power to censor, government can then use that violence as a proxy to censor the underlying message. Lord of the Flies is a particularly good example in that the graphic violence serves a broader allegory about, among other things, human political and social organization (things that a government may very well want to censor).

The bottom line is that both the functional problem (it’s not clear that censorship would do any good) and the fact that violent video games might actually have some social value suggest strongly that parents are the ones who need to supervise their children’s consumption of media. We should not let the understandable reaction to the horrific events in Newtown grease the skids toward government restrictions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Trying to pass a law to deal with someone who is already dead is just stupid. That's the bottom line.

ACLU AND Scalia are apparently right for once. That's a rarity

 

[ace99]

Shouldn't surprise you. The ACLU basically has one fundamental principle, everyone deserves to have their rights protected. They've been on the same side as everyone at some point or the other. Defended Rush Limabugh, Chick-Fil-A, the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Quaran burners, Bible thumpers, Confederate flag flyers, gay teenagers, anti-gay groups, etc....

If the ACLU was a dude he would have hardcore multiple personality disorder. I love em.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I do too.

I never trust anyone who bashes the ACLU too much.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Doesn't the ACLU side against gun users though?

That and the fact that they actually gave Obama 16 liberty torches out of 24 means I kind of have to call them lacking judgment, if nothing else.

At least they'd defend my right to say that, so they aren't all bad

@Alps- I do like the ACLU, but they're hardly perfect, and they take the wrong side sometimes. They are definitely left-leaning. We need a libertarian version of it

 

[warpus]

Trying to pass a law to deal with someone who is already dead is just stupid. That's the bottom line.

It's not if you use the dead guy and what he did as a learning experience.

Failures happen. We can learn from them or we can try to forget about them.

And I don't really care about Scalia or know much about him other that he is a dishonest idiot who shouldn't be in charge of anything, but let's not pass any stupid unrelated laws in the wake of this tragedy. Claming down on video games after something like this would be like punching a random person in China in the face instead of fining someone who ran a red light in Ohio, as punishment.

 

[ace99]

I do too.

I never trust anyone who bashes the ACLU too much.

People that bash the ACLU I find generally aren't able to separate themselves from the larger principle.

They look at the ACLU defending the right of Neo-Nazi's to march or the KKK to hold a rally and say "I hate that"

Then they look at the ACLU defending the right of a student to wear a crucifix or the right of a prisoner to pray in the morning and say "I like that"

Without understanding that it was the same amendment (different sections) being defended.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Banning guns in reaction to this is also an unnecessary reaction.

Regarding the ACLU thing, are CSA flags actually illegal anywhere?

 

[say1988]

Doesn't the ACLU side against gun users though?

No.

Officially they have no official position on gun control as it isn't "a civil liberties issue".
However they disagree with D.C. v. Heller (in the sense that the ACLU puts more emphasis on the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

They have taken action in cases protecting gun owners in the past, but they usually take a back seat to the NRA because such organizations are in a better position to get involved than the ACLU.

 

[ace99]

Gun Control
Updated: 7/8/2008

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

 

[Skwink]

Well I guess I'd better buy the GTA IV: Complete Edition soon. It's even on sale. Hope It doesn't turn me into a terrorist though.

 

[History_Buff]

@Alps- I do like the ACLU, but they're hardly perfect, and they take the wrong side sometimes

The whole point of the ACLU is take up just about any reasonable cause. They are on every side.

In that way, they may be the greatest American organization.

 

[JollyRoger]

They are definitely left-leaning.

That's usually the case when you are supporting liberties.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The whole point of the ACLU is take up just about any reasonable cause. They are on every side.

In that way, they may be the greatest American organization.

Why is there the right wing impression that they are a left wing organization then?

If nothing else, their high marks for Obama show their bias. 16/24. Really? The mainstream Republicans, of course, were given appropriately zero/near zero scores.

 

[Crezth]

Why is there the right wing impression that they are a left wing organization then?.

Because they defend the civil rights act, which you and other conservatives hate.

 

[History_Buff]

Why is there the right wing impression that they are a left wing organization then?

Because the right wingers you're talking about are completely off their rockers mostly.

Also the whole defending blacks, poors, and gays thing.

If nothing else, their high marks for Obama show their bias. 16/24. Really? The mainstream Republicans, of course, were given appropriately zero/near zero scores.

Because contrary to all your shouting about the NDAA, the Obama administration has done a decent job of respecting civil rights. Most Repubs are clamoring for the administration to stop respecting them.

 

[bhsup]

Why is there the right wing impression that they are a left wing organization then?

Because the ACLU gets off going into rural communities and threating to bankrupt school districts if they dare have a benediction at the high school graduation ceremony.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Doesn't the ACLU side against gun users though?

That and the fact that they actually gave Obama 16 liberty torches out of 24 means I kind of have to call them lacking judgment, if nothing else.

At least they'd defend my right to say that, so they aren't all bad

@Alps- I do like the ACLU, but they're hardly perfect, and they take the wrong side sometimes. They are definitely left-leaning. We need a libertarian version of it

Showing yet again that you are actually opposed to liberty and freedom, as well protection for all under the Constitution? If you were actually a libertarian you would support everything they do. After all, that is really their mission statement.

 

[History_Buff]

Because the ACLU gets off going into rural communities and threating to bankrupt school districts if they dare have a benediction at the high school graduation ceremony.

Perhaps those high schools should stop breaking the law?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't do that. After all, that would be "systematically removing God from the schools".