1 day left....
- Thread starter Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let's remember that we're talking about the Supreme Court here. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the sitting President not elected by the people and it's a lifetime position so they don't have a group of constituents to appease in order to keep their jobs.archvile93 said:
This means that they have less to worry about in upholding the rules set down in the Constitution than say your average Congressman who is going to (at least pretend)to do what the people they represent tell them to in order to stay in office.
So? That just means they'll most likely do what the president wants. So what's the president's take on this then?Stryc9 said:
I think that in the end, the motion will be struck down with nonchalance on the part of the judges, and we will all have been freaking out for no reason.
I'm not holding my breath for some sort of "intelligent reasoning" on the part of the supreme court. Does no one remember when SCOTUS decided Corporations have the same 1st amendment rights of a single human-being? Yeah, they did that.
So.. I don't know, it's literally up to the court, and how they're feeling during the decision. Hopefully someone is reasonable.
So.. I don't know, it's literally up to the court, and how they're feeling during the decision. Hopefully someone is reasonable.
There's also a reason it says 13+. But, if I remember correctly, those games would be banned as well.Legion IV said:
The ratings system is weird, anyway. The fact that a game like Halo is grouped on the same level as Heavy Rain is messed up indeed.
Is it banned outright or just banned to those who don't meet the age requirements?ProfessorLayton said:
If they won't let us buy games, we'll just pirate games, which is gonna MAKE GLOBAL WARMING ANGRY!
We have one day left... until they start discussing the case, not whether they make a decision.
They have until June 2011 to decide. I bet nothing gets done for quite a while.
They have until June 2011 to decide. I bet nothing gets done for quite a while.
Banned to any minor. See, it's not just trying to make store policies official laws, it's trying to ban any game politicians deem "violent" to anyone who is under 18. So that means a 17 year old couldn't legally buy Ratchet & Clank. Yeah. Plus the stance the opposition is taking is ridiculous. They're trying to claim that video games make children violent... which was said about movies, comic books, rock and roll music, etc... The problem is they're trying to censor a medium that doesn't need to be censored in the way they're trying to censor it. The Extra Credits Guy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] says it much better than I can and he actually knows what he's talking about. It's just... wasting the Supreme Court's time. You would think politicians would act logically, except we also live in a country where women can join men's sports teams because of "equal rights" but men can't join women's.Snarky Username said:
Ah, ok. I thought they meant that just M rated games were banned for minors not every single game. I can see restricting sale to those who meet the age requirements like many theaters do with movies, but not just banning them to all who are under the age of 18. That does nothing for the overdemonization already haunting the industry. Thanks for clearing that up.ProfessorLayton said:
Yeah all of the Justices are big fans of the constituion. But I also agree that people have to use "unconstitutional" less. I mean here its fine but on alcohol taxes? C'mon you guys have half a brain right?Hking0036 said:
The current Justices weren't all appointed by Obama, at least one was appointed by Bush Jr. and Clinton and Bush Sr. and so on. They will not, and do not have to do what the President says.archvile93 said:
It's like Starke and MaxPowers666 have said, there's no telling what decision they're gonna come up with and we probably won't know tomorrow. I'll say that it's up in the air what they'll do but I'm thinking they'll come down on the side of the Constitution here and not what the idiot scare-mongering watchdog groups want.
It's the USSC, not "politicians". There's a difference.archvile93 said:
Theoretically just for those who don't meet the age requirements, but, in that case there would be a "chilling effect" on the industry. So, it would effectivly expand into being an outright ban.Snarky Username said:
It's idiotic. Minors have to have their parents with them to get M rated games, why would you ban the selling of any game? It's stupid and it does violate my constitutional rights. If we are going to annoy the game industry with this bullshit, then why not annoy the movies industry? I'm sixteen and the theaters let me into R rated movies without an adult.
I did a speech for my Speech class oddly enough about the effect of video games on minors and if it actually causes violence. Oddly enough, statistics prove it does not. They do these violence tests on little kids, six year olds, and if I remember correctly, when I was that age I was pretending to be the Men in Black. Six year olds are impressionable. So if you keep the current system and let parents have a better grasp of how video games are rated and all that kind of stuff, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about this stupidity.
I did a speech for my Speech class oddly enough about the effect of video games on minors and if it actually causes violence. Oddly enough, statistics prove it does not. They do these violence tests on little kids, six year olds, and if I remember correctly, when I was that age I was pretending to be the Men in Black. Six year olds are impressionable. So if you keep the current system and let parents have a better grasp of how video games are rated and all that kind of stuff, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about this stupidity.