281: Battlefield: Washington

[Greg Tito]

Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

 

[Delusibeta]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent[footnote]The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings.[/footnote]. Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

 

[Baldr]

I think if anything in this case, behind the scenes court clerks may have helped the ESA more than anything they could have written and argued.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

No, the law would have put in place a separate labeling system that was controlled by the state.

Generally, I look to Scalia for indications of how the conservative wing of the court is likely going to act. Sotomayor, in contrast, is often a good indicator of the more liberal half of the court. While I understand that the questions aren't always indicative of the ruling (and that the article will have an understandable slant in favor of the ECA), it is pretty clear that the justices were hostile to the California attorney's line of argument. His argument clearly hurt his side during the questioning, as nothing quite makes you bad like saying "I've never experienced this kind of medium before, but I feel totally inclined to make legislation on it."

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Does anyone else feel as if this article would be better suited in like 30 years from now. I have no idea why this article annoys me so much, it just seems like I'm reading a documentary about something where almost everyone involved has died from old age, and we were able to find this one woman who was there that historical day. Or an overanalyzed golf match with the commentators whispering with the tone of something really dramatic happening (He picked the 5 iron that's really gonna cost him.) I don't know why I wrote this comment, just something here offends me on some level, and maybe that it offends me is the real reason I'm getting worked up.

 

[JDKJ]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

 

[JDKJ]

It's a good thing that no one bothered to file a class action lawsuit against the ECA when they pulled that Amazon-discount-bait-and-switch on their members (back in the day when they still had members) or Mercurio would have been too busy defending her client to take time out and frolic her ass down to D.C.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

 

[Dastardly]

Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

 

[JDKJ]

Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

Anything short of a unanimous decision is likely to fuel the fires of the Leland Yees of the world. And I doubt the Court will come back unanimous. I'm betting that at least Breyer will write a dissenting opinion that'll sprinkle enough of a breadcrumb trail for future legislative attempts to follow.

 

[theaceplaya]

'Vibe, vibration, stakes is high. You know them stakes is high'

-De La Soul, 1996.

I always think of this song whenever I read about the Supreme Court video game case. This is kind of a big deal folks.

 

[JDKJ]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

 

[Toasted Nuts]

A good read, the site is the only place I see any coverage of this and its interesting to hear about whats going on.

Im glad to hear the representative of the games industry was confident and understood not only the medium but also how to respond to probing questions about how it is different from other mediums under the first amendment.

The guy representing California, makes me happy he sounded like he had no idea what he was doing. But also makes me upset given the complete ignorance of the people behind this case, to put someone forward who doesnt understand much about the medium shows they themselves truely don't understand it as they would have chosen someone with more background knowledge.

Hope the decision goes the way of the games industry, and after reading that, makes me feel happier

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

:3

True story. Especially since nowadays it seems that the stages of mental maturity don't seem to follow physical.

 

[elvor0]

I'm feeling optomistic here, even though the Justices -are- the last generation or the generation before that, they're at least rational in the way they see video games, Justice Scalia was brilliant in the first half of the hearing though

Sadly I dont find it hard to believe that Morazzni has never played a video game in his life, if he had he might not be such a dick, he's just one of those stuffy old guys who's afraid of new things, much the same as all the other groups that hate on video games, or the groups back in the day that tried to get Dungeons & Dragons banned, he will never understand them, and will never try to understand them, his argument was falling apart at the seems before he'd finished making it.

I think at this point, given what happened in the court, the worst that could happen is they slap a "Warning: "Deviant" or extreme violence, not reccomended for children" thing on the front cover, which to be honest I think we'd be better off with, as it gives no excuse to parents to blame the industry because it quite clearly states on the box that it's not for kids.

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

It could be if there's scenes of a sexual nature, as correct me if I'm wrong you have to be 18 in the states to have sex right? Although aside from Leisure suit larry and possibly GTA San Adreas, I can't think of any games that would qualify for games. I dont know though, I'm in Britain and we have an 18 rating here too, as well as the ESRB/PEGI rating of 17+ but the 18 age rating is done by the British Board of Film Classification, which is law, but the BBFC only does some games.

 

[The Admiral]

I don't think this law was ever meant to succeed. Legislators just wanted to seem like they tried so they can say to their constituency, "Look! I defended families, but those evil liberals want to train your precious children to kill babies." The lack luster support shows they never really cared about the law in the first place. I can't say that I blame them either. It is better for them to gain the support from retarded parents than teens and young adults who can't/don't vote.

 

[elvor0]

I don't think this law was ever meant to succeed. Legislators just wanted to seem like they tried so they can say to their constituency, "Look! I defended families, but those evil liberals want to train your precious children to kill babies." The lack luster support shows they never really cared about the law in the first place. I can't say that I blame them either. It is better for them to gain the support from retarded parents than teens and young adults who can't/don't vote.

Maybe Justice Scalia was just bored and he wanted to rip the bill a new one personally?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8299-Critical-Miss-Trolling-for-Justice

comes to mind.