Games on Trial
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
I think everyone on the internet is familiar with Ayn Rand's works after about a month-two months in a forum. Don't flatter yourself.LarenzoAOG said:
OT: something, something, censorship is bad in this case. Some of those Supreme Court Judges sound hella cool.
ERM, why has California suddenly declared war on the video games industry? Sorry, i dont live in America so im not really sure of some of the political issues over there but, over here in Britain we more or less allow anything and everything. The government over here is more concerned with getting us out of the recession than imposing ridiculous laws which, in the long run, wont make a bloody difference anyway ^^
But that's beside the point, isn't it? The fact is their company policy already restricts who can buy the games. Making that same rule into a federal law shouldn't really change anything for retailers or their revenue. I can't imagine they're seeing massive profits from illegally selling to minors, so nothing should change. Maybe digital distribution could run into problems with age verification, but there's probably simple enough ways for sellers to ensure that their asses are covered. Shouldn't it be just as illegal for a kid to buy a Mature game as it is for a store to sell them one?JDKJ said:
My opinions:
(Biggest concern bolded)
I find it very concerning that the ESRB was only mentioned twice in a 72-page transcript in a case about keeping violent games away from minors.
Both sides were ripped apart by the Justices, IMO, but that's them doing their jobs. The thing is, the guys siding with California sounded EXTREMELY ignorant about the medium. I mean Jack Thompson levels of ignorant, but at least they made the EMA lawyer have to answer some tough questions. It's just a shame the guy had such trouble answering. The ones siding with the EMA weren't exactly game-savy, but at least they knew enough about how the medium and it's relation with the law, and law itself. It exposed some of the biggest flaws of the California law. This could honestly go either way...
On a side note: Postal 2 was a footnote in gaming history. Not even a footnote. Yet these guys seem to treat this game like it's Mario: Gaming's mascot. THEY are glorifying Postal 2, not the game industry.
(Biggest concern bolded)
I find it very concerning that the ESRB was only mentioned twice in a 72-page transcript in a case about keeping violent games away from minors.
Both sides were ripped apart by the Justices, IMO, but that's them doing their jobs. The thing is, the guys siding with California sounded EXTREMELY ignorant about the medium. I mean Jack Thompson levels of ignorant, but at least they made the EMA lawyer have to answer some tough questions. It's just a shame the guy had such trouble answering. The ones siding with the EMA weren't exactly game-savy, but at least they knew enough about how the medium and it's relation with the law, and law itself. It exposed some of the biggest flaws of the California law. This could honestly go either way...
On a side note: Postal 2 was a footnote in gaming history. Not even a footnote. Yet these guys seem to treat this game like it's Mario: Gaming's mascot. THEY are glorifying Postal 2, not the game industry.
Not to avoid the question actually posed, but if you take as a given the studies that indicate 2 out of 10 attempts by the underage to purchase age-restricted games are successful and extrapolate that to the sales of a nationwide brick and mortar super-chain, I'd bet we're talking about a nice chunk o' change.rsvp42 said:
I honestly don't know anyone that does, and I know a lot of PC gamers. It's one of those games that people pirate for a couple lols, get tired of, and delete.imnotparanoid said:
But politicians keep bringing it up like it's the ONLY THING THAT GAMING HAS EVER PRODUCED
I'm not "Flattering myself" I just assumed that a site devoted to gaming may not be frequented by those that study Objectivist philosiphy, and I may have been wrong to assume but until today I hadn't talked to one.TraderJimmy said:
Well if that's an accurate breakdown of the views of the justices on this matter then I'm not really worried. Ginsburg and Thomas and almost certain to side in favor of the EMA and against California. Ginsburg was a chief litigator of the ACLU and I would have a hard time seeing her decide a case in favor of restricting free speech. Thomas, on the other hand, is likely to live up to the joke of doing whatever Scalia does. As far as Kennedy goes, I have no idea.
It's an interesting breakdown with the justices failing to fall into the typical "liberal" vs. "conservative" camps we've come to expect from the Court.
BTW does anyone else find the image of a Supreme Court justice talking about Mortal Kombat in open court hilarious?
It's an interesting breakdown with the justices failing to fall into the typical "liberal" vs. "conservative" camps we've come to expect from the Court.
BTW does anyone else find the image of a Supreme Court justice talking about Mortal Kombat in open court hilarious?
Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.
I own it. It came with my copy of Postal the movie for free. Don't play it much, though. Tends to get old rather fast.Altorin said:
I'm (somewhat) surprised that two opposites like Scalia and Kagan could agree that this law seems pretty bad. It definitely shows this is a non-partisan issue, despite a select few people trying to point the finger at liberals or conservatives as wanting to infringe on free speech.
And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.
I guess in addition to being unconstitutional, the law just doesn't have any justification to exist.
And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.
I guess in addition to being unconstitutional, the law just doesn't have any justification to exist.
Alito should just leave the originalism to Scalia, the biggest proponent of originalism to ever grace the Court. I'm not so sure Alito's got the firmest grip on the concept. But maybe Scalia and Thomas won't let him in the clubhouse unless he brings it up every now and then.BehattedWanderer said:
That's exactly the problem we have here in America (when I say America, I mean the whole continent instead of only referring to the USA), the politicians are extremely close minded and many, many people who support them also are. I just hope this law is just dismissed as soon as Arnold-Mr. Steroid-head-Schartzenegger gets his mouth out of his ass.Kratenser said:
You must be new to the conversation. Your country already has this sort of law in place and has had it for quite a while. It matters whether the States adopt it or not because retailers might stop carrying M rated games for fear of being sued in case someone accidentally sells a game to a minor. If retailers in the US stop carrying these games then publishers might not produce these games for consumption anywhere as the US makes up the a gigantic chunk of the video game market. For more info I'd suggest looking at some of the Escapist's past articles. It seems like nearly half of them this year have been about this court case.Kratenser said:
