Games on Trial

[Sterling|D-Reaver]

To many people want someone else to be responsible for their children.
The more laws/Government intervention into how kids are raised, the more things that failing parents can point to as responsible for their children's actions, other then their parenting.

 

[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

Well, I just finished reading and listen through it and that was very informative, thank you very much for the link. There are a million things that I wished that the lawyer on "our side" would have said, emphasizing the ESRB's role in the ratings, stating how there are few, if any, games that have the crap that one of the Justice's kept rambling about, and emphasizing how the parent's should be responsible, not the government, for their child's wellbeing, but overall I'm feeling slightly good about this case.

I'm still nervous as hell, but still a bit confident. I sent the link to my dad who I just had an argument about over this (above post), and hopefully he'll get both sides of the argument at least.

Fingers crossed people. Fingers crossed.

 

[captainwalrus]

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.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

 

[JDKJ]

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).

Your Dad's not entirely out in left field. Self-regulation does often produce crappy results. When the fox is in charge of guarding the hen-house, don't be surprised if he helps himself to a hen for dinner.

 

[Funkysandwich]

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."

... I'm sorry? I don't think I've played that game before. Wouldn't that be refused classification in most countries? Thus meaning it wasn't allowed to be sold, and making that argument irrelevant.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

Besides, if you don't like the current state of the Constitution, just give it some time. It isn't carved in stone. Wait a hundred years or so and come back. It'll look nothing then like it did before. Those who would expect the U.S. Constitution to never change (whether for better or for worse), don't know too much about the U.S. Constitution.

And, just so you know, "tax protesters" (that class of persons who argue that the federal government has no power to levy personal income taxes) are, as a general rule, scary. Approach with due caution.

 

[JDKJ]

..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.

Can't say I blame you. I don't disclose personal information online, either. But I'm less concerned about assumptions and more concerned about someone getting a credit card in my name and then using it for a week-long, all-inclusive ski trip to Aspen.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is THIS

 

[Lucifron]

Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is SNIP

You actually can do exactly that in Postal 2. You can, in fact, first urinate on the schoolgirls so that they vomit, then pour gasoline on them and light them on fire, after which you can beat off their burnt heads with a shovel. If you want to put out the burning corpses, you can urinate on them again.

Now, where did I put my copy...?

 

[Mr. Omega]

Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is SNIP

You actually can do exactly that in Postal 2. You can, in fact, first urinate on the schoolgirls so that they vomit, then pour gasoline on them and light them on fire, after which you can beat off their burnt heads with a shovel. If you want to put out the burning corpses, you can urinate on them again.

Now, where did I put my copy...?

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[DTWolfwood]

"Why isn't it common sense to say that if a parent wants his 13-year-old child to watch a movie listen to music read a book 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?"

See how that statement works for all forms of media Justice Breyer? Key word is imagine unless the game industry start making games where it actively promotes the physical activity of doing those things...

Touche Breyer! Touche.

 

[Toasted Nuts]

Why doesnt California try and fix itself before trying to push through a pointless law like this.

Their argument is stupid because if parents HAVE a problem with violent video games the buck well and truely ends with THEM!!!

"I don't want my 13 year old playing violent video games."

"Then dont let them buy one... or better still if you are scared that you as a parent as so inept that you cannot stop them buying one behind your back, dont let them have a game console..."

But it appears that people like to jump on the bandwagon of mass hysteria where games are the spawn of satan and all that is bad in the world stems from games. Yet they dont seem to understand that there was war and violence from people of all ages and backgrounds before video games. Makes me depressed about the human race.

Also:

"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...."

Has he just thought of some random violent and act and said its a game, even though there are actually depictions of this sort of thing in other sorts of medium, books/movies. I have yet to see a game (at least a game that a 13 year old would actually go out and buy as apposed to some indiegame made by some guy in his bedroom) that is anyway like this.

Sigh...

 

[Ihniwid]

I love that a man who once was the model for violent video game heroes is now the frontman for a direct attack on the same genre.

This law will not go through. =)

 

[yellowhead]

Unless this law is streched to every form of medium then i can't support it in any way.

They really should show the Supreme Court a few episodes of Extra Credits and then maybe they can appreciate this art form a lot more.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

If a State doesn't want the Federal government telling them what the speed limit on an interstate highway is, then the solution is simple: they can reject the federal funding for highways within the state, build them with their own state funding, and post whatever speed limit they like. Plain and simple.

But having chosen to take the federal funding, don't complain about the strings that come attached.

 

[captainwalrus]

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

There's no provision in the Constitution saying that spending for the general welfare will be divided amongst the states according to population. Are you referring to Article I, Section 9? Because that apportionment in that sense means that direct taxes, like the income tax, have to levied based on state population and cannot be geographically uniform. The general welfare clause says that the federal government can levy taxes for the general welfare. Full stop. No elaboration. You can interpret that broadly or narrowly, whatever.

The Constitution also doesn't say that Congress can't legislate on education, speed limits or the drinking age. It enumerates powers that Congress can legislate on, and the 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states. The Constitution doesn't directly enumerate those things. And this is an important point, because we get to the crux of the problem, which is constitutional interpretation. The 10th Amendment may say that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the States, but things like the Necessary and Proper clause and the Commerce clause imply powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. This is a problem not solely with the 16th Amendment, nor is it a recent problem; it's been a problem in the entire history of constitutional law and with all other amendments. If the Constitution just had one correct interpretation, then being a Supreme Court justice would be a cakewalk.

 

[JDKJ]

Whenever I hear the "state's right" spiel, for some strange reason a Southern, red-neck voice from the past comes to mind, saying, "We don't need nobody from Wershington comin' down here an' tellin' us how we should treat our Negroes."

 

[Negatempest]

Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

 

[JDKJ]

Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

You don't even have to stretch that far. There's interactive books. Like the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series.