Talk:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech

Active discussions


I think the title should be "Supreme Court rules that California Violent Video Game law is unconstitutional". I cannot change the title, presumably because I am not autoconfirmed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is the "unconstitutional" is too vague, as it doesn't say why it is unconstitutional and doesn't imply that such rules would violate the First Amendment in any state, not just California. The overriding point of the ruling is that video games fall under the protection of the First Amendment, like other works of art, as it expresses ideas and therefore cannot be regulated. This is in contrast to pornography which can be regulated and is not protected. Perhaps another headline like "US Supreme Court rules video games are protected under the First Amendment"? I know from experience that US has to be in the title, else the country is not identified in the headline. Mattisse (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you weren't trying to change the title as I was writing it, as I would have lost all my edits if you had. Then I would have to rewrite the whole article from scratch. Mattisse (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It has happened several times that someone has redirected the article and I have lost all my careful edits! But don't you think that the article's editor should be at least informed before a redirect takes place while the article is still in development? For one thing, sometimes the focus of the article changes while the editor is writing and learns more. What is the hurry about redirecting before an article is finished? Mattisse (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess people tend to see the title more than anything else since it's in recent changes etc. So, if they decide it would be better if it were something else, it irks them when they see it... But I'm only speculating. I tend to leave articles until people haven't edited them for a little while, or have added the review template. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Case nameEdit

Shouldn't it mention the case name somewhere other than in an external link?Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1252544 [Passed]Edit

Return to "US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech" page.