Listen to the Audio of Last Week's SCOTUS Arguments

[vansau]

Listen to the Audio of Last Week's SCOTUS Arguments

There's been a lot of coverage to read about the recent Supreme Court videogame case, but now you can actually listen to the arguments that were made.

It's been nearly a week since the Supreme Court heard both sides of the argument for the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case, which means that it's now a waiting game until the verdict comes down from on high. Despite the fact that <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.242326-Grand-Theft-Childhood-Author-Pokes-Holes-in-SCOTUS-Research>California's logic and research has been proven faulty, at least <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105016-Delaware-Politician-Readies-for-California-SCOTUS-Win>one politician believes that the state is going to win the case. While you await the results, however, you can now listen to the audio of the actual court arguments.

For the moment, it sounds like the Court could go either way with its decision. Up until now, the United States has been one of the few countries that hasn't seen any successful government interference with the videogame industry. If you haven't followed the case up 'til now, I highly recommend watching The Escapist's own Extra Credits, <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech>which recently did a bang-up job summarizing the entire situation (as well as explaining why you should care).

Source: Joystiq

Permalink

 

[ANImaniac89]

Hey I posted that earlier.

Well it is important everyone that truly cares about gaming should listen to it.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

Um, how exactly do I listen to it? I don't see a link anywhere... I think I'm just missing it, can someone help me out here?

 

[barash]

Um, how exactly do I listen to it? I don't see a link anywhere... I think I'm just missing it, can someone help me out here?

Click the 'Supreme Court' link.

 

[Vaccine]

Um, how exactly do I listen to it? I don't see a link anywhere... I think I'm just missing it, can someone help me out here?

Click the Supreme Court link at the bottom.

 

[Therumancer]

I hope I am wrong but to be honest from the way things have been sounding I can see where some people think the desician has been made in California's favor.

A lot of what has been said seems to be around the lines of questioning the wording of things and revolving around how such a law would function, rather than questioning it's right to exist.

We'll see what happens, but right now I'm definatly a bit gloomy about the whole thing (which probably comes out in some of my messages recently). Especially seeing as I think free speech is very much going to die with a whimper.

 

[Vaccine]

I have to say, the guy arguing for this, can't argue his way out of a paper bag, he's getting schooled left and right.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

I've been waiting for this, and can now confirm my initial belief: Morazzini is a dweeb.

 

[AfterAscon]

Supreme Court: What are your opening arguments for enacting this law?

Schwarzenegger: DO IT! DO IT NAO!

OT: This is quite a good listen and seems like the future of video games might be safe. I actually feel sorry for the guy arguing for the law, he was getting destroyed.

 

[Jingleman]

Remember that for purposes of making a decision, the parties' "merit briefs" are decidedly more important than oral arguments, and questions that the justices ask here do not necessarily signal their position on the issue. Oral arguments are more for clarifying ambiguities in party positions than for justices to advocate a position. Most of the argument amongst the justices will be done with memos in secret in the justices' chambers. So, if you don't like what you're hearing, don't worry too much, and if you do like what you're hearing, don't be too confident.

 

[Baldr]

I have a little background in communications law classes. We had spent a year going over every 1st Amendment case brought up to the Supreme Court, I've read most of the court briefs filed in this case, and heard the case on Friday when it was published. The Justices seem to have a pretty good grasp on all the information submitted, even through they don't probably play or know many people that play games.

To the layman it sounded like the court like the California Law, but really they were going through usual hypothetical, but more important they were playing with the idea of narrowly defined laws, in the reason why they took this case to begin with.

It is going to be another couple months before a decision, at best they are going to strike down the law, at worst they are going to recommend to California to rewrite the law among a more concrete set of standard that probably will not even effect the worse Mature rated games.

 

[Vaccine]

Oh god, I'm convinced these guys are so full of shit it's unbelievable.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?

MR. MORAZZINI: No, it wouldn't, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.

So, I could make a game about torturing animals, and it wouldn't be covered by the act, simply because they're not directed acts of violence towards a human.
Yet clearly in another section of his argument Morazzini discusses the allowed freedom of creativity of inflicting said violence.

His arguments are all over the fucking place, I've seen better debates by high school students.

 

[Sp3ratus]

Was actually very interesting to read, from what I read it's looking pretty good for our beloved video games.

Oh, but a real WTF moment came up near the end:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So if the video producer says this is not a human being, it's an android computer simulated person, then all they have to do is put a little artificial feature on the creature and they could sell the video game?
MR. MORAZZINI: Under the act, yes, because California's concern, I think this is one of the reasons that sex and violence are so similar, these are base physical acts we are talking about, Justice Sotomayor. So limiting, narrowing our law here in California, there in California to violence -- violent depictions against human beings.

That sounds very, very stupid to me. That's quite an easy loophole to exploit, if this nonsensical law is ever passed.

EDIT: Ah, Vaccine made a similar point to mine, got ninja'ed

 

[Gxas]

It is much better listening to it. Reading it was one thing, but now I can actually hear the tone of voice. Gives a better look into their take on the subject at hand.

 

[Grey_Focks]

heh, I kinda like Scalia...other than him (and a few others) being on our side, I'm not 100% sure what to read into this. still listening now, and really I'm intrigued. It's quite a listen.

EDIT- I cannot express how much I wish Postal 2 did not exist. Torturing babies and setting school girls on fire....grrrrrooooooooaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn.

EDIT 2- Just finished it...good god. The "What if it's a Vulcan?" thing was interesting...or I guess I should say douchebag's response was interesting.

 

[Moriarty70]

Supreme Court: What are your opening arguments for enacting this law?

Schwarzenegger: DO IT! DO IT NAO!

Upon leaving the court the governor was heard to shout at his delegation "GET TO DA CHOPPA".

Going to listen to this tonight as I'm digging a totally underground space to live in minecraft.

 

[JaredXE]

It would make absolutely no sense for the Supreme Court to deny videogames 1st Amendment freedoms. All it is is a medium to convey ideas, like ANY other entertainment medium. Morazzini is a freaking retard in his oral arguments, and I hope the old men (and women) on the bench unanimously vote against this law. California has no pathos or logos in their argument, all they are relying upon is the emotion of "Please think of the children!", and outright saying that parents CANNOT BE TRUSTED to raise their own child and make decisions for them.

Fuck the government of California, fuck the Governator, fuck Senator Yee and fuck anyone who believes in censorship for ANY reason.

 

[Tom. The Taxidermist =]]

Paul M. Smith, attorney representing the EMA: http://www.oyez.org/advocates/s/p/paul_m_smith

Zachary P. Morazini, attorney representing Schwarzenegger: http://www.oyez.org/advocates/%20/z/zackery_p_morazzini

I think EMA won.

 

[Tattaglia]

[quote="Tom. The Taxidermist =]
I think EMA won.[/quote]

Pretty much, yeah. He argued his case pretty well, while the other guy kinda-sorta didn't. The last minute is especially hilarious - he ends his argument pretty badly.