Games on Trial

[occrats]

this law comes from the man who was the terminator also known as "the the reason my cousin was a violent little kid"

 

[BabySinclair]

Having listened to the entire court hearing, I have little doubt that it will be overturned. Five of the justices easily stood against the law for being too vague or wholly against the belief that deviant violence is unique to videogames. The three that appeared to support it didn't fully rebuke Mr. Smith (pro game lawyer) whereas the other lawyer failed to answer a single question in support of the proposed law.

Should be a easy win for the industry

 

[QCX]

Simple solution. Eye for an eye.

Arnold wants to ban the sale of violent games. Then we ban the sale of all his videos, a majority of them carry violence in morbid amounts.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I laughed at this bit:

"On the other hand, Justice Breyer made it clear that he sided with California. Never inclined to restrict government power, Breyer bluntly asked the lawyer for the EMA "Why isn't it common sense to say that if a parent wants his 13-year-old child to have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.... If you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself?"

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both parents of young children, also seemed to support California's position. Roberts seemed to be most concerned with protecting children from violence in general. In response to Scalia's argument that there was no Constitutional tradition of regulating violent speech, Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Seriously, I haven't seen a single game that contain the situations they describe that already haven't been banned by normal censorship boards.

Once again, uninformed parents are causing issues.

 

[Jumplion]

I really wished that it was televised or something, I like hearing the specific context of what happened in the court room.

Was there any mention of the ESRB and how video game retailers abide by this self-regulatory system %80 of the time (too lazy to link the article)?

What about how it's the responsibility of the parent to decide what is and isn't right for their kids? It is not the government's job to tell us what games "are" and "aren't" appropriate for someone, and HELLO, there's a big "M For Mature" sign on the fucking box!

This is really getting me nervous, as some other people have pointed out, if the Supreme Court ruled against this it could mean that they only ruled against it because of how vague and broad the law is, and that could spring up more specific, and lethal, laws against the industry.

You can listen to the audio recording at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Thank you, I know dub thee "Awesome-meister", I'll give this a listening to soon.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

..And I am still in high school...

Really nosey - but is this true? Profile says your 28. Maybe 'High School' means something different in the USA.


Thanks JDKJ.

How might this affect online steam-like distribution of games?

I just don't like putting the year I was born on anything, don't know why, but yeah I'm under 21, I guess I dislike giving out my age, sometimes peoplemake assumptions based on my age.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

..And I am still in high school...

Really nosey - but is this true? Profile says your 28. Maybe 'High School' means something different in the USA.


Thanks JDKJ.

How might this affect online steam-like distribution of games?

I never put my actual birthday on anything online, I don;t want people making assumptons about me because of my age, I am under 21 however.

EDIT: sorry the first time I qouted you it didn't show up so now we have 2, my bad.

 

[haaxist]

I'm not sure if American law works the same as Canadian law, but up here we have a community morality test. *snip*

In short, yes, they have, the only problem being, of course, that nobody can ever agree on what is actually "obscene." Here are just a couple of standards the Court has tried to implement over the years:

-as the general, overall community can come to a consensus on;
-as reasonable, broad-minded individuals can interpret;
-as concerning material of an especially offensive nature;

And each time these definitions have been dropped on the grounds of being too vague and ill-defined. So far, the only forms of expression that are expressly unprotected by the Constitution seem to be ones that manifestly evidence an actual crime having been committed or a crime being committed, like child porn or snuff films.

Based on this precedent, I'm fairly confident that this case will the go the way of the dodo as well. I'm not too overly fussed.

Well, I'm just glad I don't have to get upset about it, as it doesn't really concern me. The only thing I absolutely object to is the judges bringing up games that are the most extreme cases they could find. The first time I read the article, I didn't know the game they were referencing actually existed. I now know it's called Postal 2, but at first I was terribly confused. It seems that what they are doing is only looking for games that help them make their case, and ignoring all the other evidence that would undermine it. Like, people could argue that Heavy Rain is obscene, based on the fact that it puts a small child in danger, it contains themes of self-mutilation, it has a sequence where the female character is chased around her apartment and subsequently killed while clad only in underwear, she later performs a striptease, you can watch her shower, one of the characters has a drug addiction, and there are a multitude of grisly ways for each character to die. However, the game also teaches people to utilize their brains to find all the clues to obtain the best possible outcome, it teaches people that every action has a consequence and that there is no turning back from it, that the monster doesn't always hide in the closet, sometimes it's the very thing we've been taught to trust (which in turn teaches people to question whether something is right because they have judged it to be right or if they've been conditioned to accept something as right), and that if you apply yourself you can overcome almost any obstacle. My point is, the people trying to put this law through seem to be looking at everything in video games that they consider to be "bad", without actually taking the time to find the things that make video games "good". I mean, in a contest for best content between, say, Bioshock (themes of dystopia, tyranny, reliance on a substance to make your life better, breaking free from your conditioning, morality) and The Human Centipede ( a crazed surgeon sews three people together lips to anus, for his own pleasure), I'm pretty sure Bioshock would win every time, despite the fact that you bludgeon people to death with a wrench from time to time.

Ah well, hopefully you are correct and it does go nest with the dodo's, because most of my favourite games were developed in America. Either that, or all the developers need to move to Canada. XD

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

Um...how is it censorship? its just banning the sale of it to minors it not censoring it keeping it from being sold at all is not whats happening.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Um...how is it censorship? its just banning the sale of it to minors it not censoring it keeping it from being sold at all is not whats happening.

There is more to the current case than just the restriction of sales to minors.

People are looking at the much bigger picture. Essentially, this case is questioning whether Video Games have first amendment rights.

 

[Jumplion]

Ha, I just got into a HUGE argument with my dad over this case. From what I could gather from all the yelling and screaming (from both sides), he said that no self-regulatory system has ever worked, and that if there is going to be a regulatory system that it must be regulated by the government, said that the 1st amendment right for video games is "bullshit" and why wouldn't pornography and drugs have 1st amendment rights, citing the RapeLay game, the violence, and rape crap games and stuff. And we found out that the MPAA is self-regulatory, which he thought was controlled by the government. Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I don't want to paint him ignorant, but that's whaT I can remember after all the yelling and shouting from both of us (gotta love 'dem aggressors, runs in the family )

 

[Levethian]

Understood. Forgive my assumption based on your false age

(And that's how I ended up double-posting too).

 

[Something Amyss]

That would be responsible.

Yeah, parents should know every activity their kids are involved in at all times. If you don't have ESP, then you're a bad parent!

But seriously, since parents can still buy their kids games, this doesn't impact parenting skills or even parental responsibility.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I wonder how your dad feels about all those other places where people aren't caught 100% of the time.

Hell, speeding is against the law, but we don't catch 100% of speeders. Would changing this from a voluntary step to a legal mandate increase the effectiveness? Maybe, but kids can still buy cigarettes with alarming frequency, and that's illegal. That even carries stiff fines.

 

[Jumplion]

Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I wonder how your dad feels about all those other places where people aren't caught 100% of the time.

Hell, speeding is against the law, but we don't catch 100% of speeders. Would changing this from a voluntary step to a legal mandate increase the effectiveness? Maybe, but kids can still buy cigarettes with alarming frequency, and that's illegal. That even carries stiff fines.

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-*****", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

 

[captainwalrus]

Overstate? Really, look around. Patriot act, Kelo vs. New london, this case, and to top it off, the 16th amendment. All of these are blatant attacks on the rights we have, by method of overruling or changing the constitution.
The 16th amendment is the worst. The constitution specifically says that the federal government shall have no power over education, among other things. And also that all powers not mentioned belong to the state or the people. by way of the 16th amendment, they completely reversed something in the original constitution, which wasn't done by any other amendment, and they use these changes to deny federal funding to states whose schools don't meet their requirments, or to states who change the drinking age to under 21, or to states whose speed limit is over 55/65 on freeways. This is the federal government taking powers it is explicitly and implicitly told it has no place in by changing the tax system.
The patriot act suspends all rights you have on nothing more than the suspicion of terrorism, and a suspicion isn't due process. In Kelo vs. New london, the federal supreme court ruled that it was acceptable for the government to use eminent domain to force individuals to sell thier land to a private company, specifically phizor.
This case is obviously an attack against free speach, the only question is which way the decision will go.

Several of these were argued in the supreme court, and allowed to continue, despite the fact that they obviously violate the constitution. The supreme court was put in place to prevent legislatures from passing laws that did just that, and yet here they are supporting the very laws they were supposed to overturn.

Amending the Constitution =/= destroying the Constitution. If things that were in the original Constitution couldn't be changed, then the amendment process would be pointless. The process was made so that the Constitution would be able to flexibly adapt to situations in the future that the founding fathers couldn't reasonably account for. You know what else in the original Constitution was changed by constitutional amendment? The Three-Fifths Compromise. The 13th Amendment changed the original Constitution so that a black person counts as a full human being and not a fraction of one. Plus, how does the existence of 16th Amendment mean that SCOTUS isn't doing its job? It was passed through the legislatures and states by constitutionally mandated methods. SCOTUS can't overturn the passage of an amendment.

 

[captainwalrus]

woops double post ignore =]

 

[spartan231490]

Overstate? Really, look around. Patriot act, Kelo vs. New london, this case, and to top it off, the 16th amendment. All of these are blatant attacks on the rights we have, by method of overruling or changing the constitution.
The 16th amendment is the worst. The constitution specifically says that the federal government shall have no power over education, among other things. And also that all powers not mentioned belong to the state or the people. by way of the 16th amendment, they completely reversed something in the original constitution, which wasn't done by any other amendment, and they use these changes to deny federal funding to states whose schools don't meet their requirments, or to states who change the drinking age to under 21, or to states whose speed limit is over 55/65 on freeways. This is the federal government taking powers it is explicitly and implicitly told it has no place in by changing the tax system.
The patriot act suspends all rights you have on nothing more than the suspicion of terrorism, and a suspicion isn't due process. In Kelo vs. New london, the federal supreme court ruled that it was acceptable for the government to use eminent domain to force individuals to sell thier land to a private company, specifically phizor.
This case is obviously an attack against free speach, the only question is which way the decision will go.

Several of these were argued in the supreme court, and allowed to continue, despite the fact that they obviously violate the constitution. The supreme court was put in place to prevent legislatures from passing laws that did just that, and yet here they are supporting the very laws they were supposed to overturn.

Amending the Constitution =/= destroying the Constitution. If things that were in the original Constitution couldn't be changed, then the amendment process would be pointless. The process was made so that the Constitution would be able to flexibly adapt to situations in the future that the founding fathers couldn't reasonably account for. You know what else in the original Constitution was changed by constitutional amendment? The Three-Fifths Compromise. The 13th Amendment changed the original Constitution so that a black person counts as a full human being and not a fraction of one. Plus, how does the existence of 16th Amendment mean that SCOTUS isn't doing its job? It was passed through the legislatures and states by constitutionally mandated methods. SCOTUS can't overturn the passage of an amendment.

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

 

[Ghengis John]

Nobody is saying you can't make violent games. They're saying you can't sell them to minors. If the gaming industry isn't selling these games to minors and doesn't value those revenues then why are they fighting this so hard? Because they obviously are. God, some of you people. The guy who wrote the article works for a group of investors trying to turn North Carolina into a silicon valley. Of course HE wants you scared. Of course HE wants you mad.

Don't think I favor this, I favor parents actually raising their kids, but you can't trust news about this from people with a vested interest. It's like taking data on Climate Change from the Oil Industry. They're going to present this in such a way that it looks like a freedom of speech issue when it's really a "leave my piggy bank the hell alone" issue. And you will get all worked up and march off to fight their battle for them like so many southerners who did not own slaves.

 

[Ghengis John]

It angers me to no end that this sort of nonsense even arises in, what I thought was, a developed society.

C'mon, people! Do we really need big brother holding our hands with everything?

Can we not just look away?

The stupidity of some people - sheesh!

See? See? They got you ANGRY. That's what they wanted.