Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA



Two law schools tackled the issues in the controversial Schwarzenegger v. EMA case in mock trials, but they each favored a different side.

It's a staple of law schools and debate teams around the world to conduct mock trials, or moot courts, to teach students about the inner-workings of the court room. This week, the results of two moot courts were released that portrayed how the participants believed the Supreme Court would decide on the proposed law in California which would restrict the sale of videogames like porn or guns. The moot court at the Institute of Bill of Rights Law (IBRL) at William & Mary Law School included several notable journalists and appellate judges acting as the Supreme Court, and they upheld the California law as Constitutional with a vote of 6-3.

The IBRL case was heard by USA Today's Joan Biskupic, The Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin, the New York Times' Adam Liptak, University of California, Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemrinsky, Jeffrey Sutton from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkman.

An attendee said that the only videogame that was mentioned during the proceedings was Postal, implying that all games are similar. Perhaps that's why the court voted that the law was Constitutional if it prevented Postal from getting into the hands of a child.

In contrast, the New York Law School held a moot court that contained evidence about the sexual content of games, as opposed to violence. No decision was given, but a source said that the evidence needed to be fudged in order for the State of California's position to hold any weight at all.

At the New York Law School, third year law students Andrew Blancato and John Hague wrote the bench brief to submit to a moot court competition. The brief describes a fictional game called Adventures in Chebowski Land, which is just as silly as it sounds. Most of the brief is legal jargon that admittedly makes little sense to me, but some of the statements are undeniable:

Respondent should focus on the possibility of a small jurisdiction acting as a censor for the entire Internet. They should argue that anything less than a national standard could potentially suppress an inordinate amount of expression.

If the local standard was permitted, the application of a local Amish community's understanding of obscenity would act as a censor on the whole of the nation in terms of material published on the Internet.

I don't know about you, but my idea of obscene differs greatly from most people I meet, let alone what Amish think. So if I'm ok with my son buying games that an Amish person doesn't want to be sold, then I'm out of luck? How does that work?

And because the New York Law School's case was about sexual content in games, this little quote from the lawyer arguing for the censorship position was amusing. When asked if there was any evidence of females being susceptible to deviant behavior when exposed to games, the lawyer responded:

Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

Which is just pure comedy gold.

Here's hoping that the real Supreme Court takes this issue seriously when it hears arguments on November 2nd. Click here to find out [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101654-When-Games-are-Sold-Like-Guns-An-Interview-with-the-ECAs-Hal-Halpin] more about the case from Hal Halpin, ECA President.

Source: ECA [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/09/27/moot-court-renders-schwarzenegger-v-ema-opinion]

Permalink
 

nolongerhere

Winter is coming.
Nov 19, 2008
860
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
 

Banana Phone Man

New member
May 19, 2009
1,609
0
0
Aww man. Why are American mock trials more fun than the one I had over here. I had to do one in a magistrates court about a woman who smashed a window. Not fun at all.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
The 6-3 ruling doesn't sound good given that they took it most seriously and apparently had some real judges acting the part.

We'll see what happens, but I'm increasingly concerned about this entire thing.
 

RoyalWelsh

New member
Feb 14, 2010
849
0
0
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
Bwahahahahahahaha...

Funniest thin i've heard all day, all week even. Surely that's not credible evidence.
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
Therumancer said:
The 6-3 ruling doesn't sound good given that they took it most seriously and apparently had some real judges acting the part.

We'll see what happens, but I'm increasingly concerned about this entire thing.
Count me in as well, if it does pass we can pretty much kiss any M-rated games ever being made again and the slow chipping away at free speech.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
It's clear that said girl was playing Dead Rising. Because Frank West is just that much of a man. #FrankWestFacts
 

SilentHunter7

New member
Nov 21, 2007
1,652
0
0
Puddle Jumper said:
It's clear that said girl was playing Dead Rising. Because Frank West is just that much of a man. #FrankWestFacts
I'm not so sure it wasn't the PAX demo of Duke Nukem Forever. The Duke is the only man I know of that could impregnate women through a TV.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Greg Tito said:
An attendee said that the only videogame that was mentioned during the proceedings was Postal, implying that all games are similar. Perhaps that's why the court voted that the law was Constitutional if it prevented Postal from getting into the hands of a child.
That sounds like a significant failure of the EMA side's counsel to adequately defend the medium.

-m

incidentally, how much would it suck to have been on the development team of Postal if Postal is the game that ultimately becomes the lynchpin in games having first amendment protections revoked.
 

Electrogecko

New member
Apr 15, 2010
811
0
0
I wonder what factual and statistical evidence anyone could POSSIBLY use against video games. All these studies that show causation between violent games and real life violence could be applied to movies, books, music, paintings, and sculptures with the same results. Every little thing in this world affects whether you act out violently/sexually or not- even the type of chair you sit on at your work desk or your favorite food. It'll either make you less likely or more likely- there is nothing that has no effect.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Therumancer said:
The 6-3 ruling doesn't sound good given that they took it most seriously and apparently had some real judges acting the part.

We'll see what happens, but I'm increasingly concerned about this entire thing.
Its the most realistic one as well. The people pushing for the bill will only look for the most obscene, graphical games it can find to use (as in, Postal, a game I refuse to play simply because it looks so god dang stupid, and I love violent games too) to focus upon to support their cause.

Hell, Fox does it all the time, so why wouldn't they?
 

Arcanist

New member
Feb 24, 2010
606
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Greg Tito said:
An attendee said that the only videogame that was mentioned during the proceedings was Postal, implying that all games are similar. Perhaps that's why the court voted that the law was Constitutional if it prevented Postal from getting into the hands of a child.
That sounds like a significant failure of the EMA side's counsel to adequately defend the medium.

-m

incidentally, how much would it suck to have been on the development team of Postal if Postal is the game that ultimately becomes the lynchpin in games having first amendment protections revoked.
Damn, I made myself a little sad realizing how much this would make me despised by the gaming community...

Also, 100th post! Woo!
 

dannymc18

New member
Dec 15, 2009
75
0
0
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Im british and very drunk and even i can tell this law is unconstitutional.
 

ProfessorLayton

Brotha That Will Smotha Yo Motha
Nov 6, 2008
7,453
0
0
Hey, it will be on my birthday. In that case, all I want for my birthday is for video games to survive this.

But of course, when we have real lawyers working on this, let's hope that they can defend video games better than whoever convinced them the law in question made any sense.

dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
It's not just that, it's making games with "violent content" illegal to sell to minors. So that would mean Call of Duty 1, a T (13+) rated game to be illegal for anyone under 18 to buy depending on what the government considers violent. This really isn't a matter of the games being illegal, it's just that games like Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead will just simply stop getting made because they won't make enough money so the market will be filled even more with "games for kids." Even Professor Layton had violence in it. And plus since this is coming from Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy who's been in more ultra-violent movies than I can count, is the one behind this.

And by the way, I doubt that when you were under 18 (assuming that you aren't right now) you never played an M rated video game or at least watched an R rated movie. Ratings are just parental guidelines.
 

dannymc18

New member
Dec 15, 2009
75
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
This really isn't a matter of the games being illegal, it's just that games like Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead will just simply stop getting made because they won't make enough money so the market will be filled even more with "games for kids."
It is 100% illegal to sell Fallout 3 or L4D to anyone under 18 here, yet they're still being made, and still making money. If a kid wants it, that's something the parent has to decide on. Which is the way it should be. And is. Except in America, of course.

ProfessorLayton said:
And by the way, I doubt that when you were under 18 (assuming that you aren't right now) you never played an M rated video game or at least watched an R rated movie. Ratings are just parental guidelines.
Of course I did, it was legal to do so. It just wasn't legal to buy them myself.
 

ProfessorLayton

Brotha That Will Smotha Yo Motha
Nov 6, 2008
7,453
0
0
dannymc18 said:
It is 100% illegal to sell Fallout 3 or L4D to anyone under 18 here, yet they're still being made, and still making money. If a kid wants it, that's something the parent has to decide on. Which is the way it should be. And is. Except in America, of course.
But is it illegal to sell T rated games to minors? And in America, right now it's mostly different stores' policies to choose who to sell to. In GameStop a minor has to have direct parental permission to buy an M rated game and in other places people don't care and you can buy whatever you want. But this law would make it illegal for even someone with parental permission to buy a game like Call of Duty 1 or even Ratchet & Clank. As in a criminal offense. I personally don't agree with selling Gears of War to a 9 year old and I think it's just bad parenting to let your child play something like that but it's not up to me to decide something like that and it's certainly not up to the government who know as much about video games as I do the French stock exchange.

And out of curiosity, what country are you from?
 

hudsonzero

what I thought I'd do was,
Aug 4, 2009
319
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Mock Trials Split Between Schwarzenegger and EMA
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.


Source: ECA [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/09/27/moot-court-renders-schwarzenegger-v-ema-opinion]

Permalink
to be fair the game shouldn't have came with a cup of sperm
 

dannymc18

New member
Dec 15, 2009
75
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
But is it illegal to sell T rated games to minors?
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/underagesales/underagesales-videosales.htm

The maximum fine for selling or hiring an age-restricted video, DVD or computer game to someone who is under the age specified by the BBFC is £5,000 (and/or six months? jail).

Some computer games have a Pan European Games Information logo (PEGI) which is a voluntary rating. It is advised this rating is always observed and it is best practice to comply with this in the same way the BBFC rated games are controlled.
Age groupings are Universal, Parental Guidance (12), 12, 15, 18, R-18 (Porn).
 

Saucycarpdog

New member
Sep 30, 2009
3,258
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
It's not just that, it's making games with "violent content" illegal to sell to minors. So that would mean Call of Duty 1, a T (13+) rated game to be illegal for anyone under 18 to buy depending on what the government considers violent. This really isn't a matter of the games being illegal, it's just that games like Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead will just simply stop getting made because they won't make enough money so the market will be filled even more with "games for kids."
I am against this law and all but, do you really think that that many kids buy games behind their parents back? Many kids just have their parents buy the games for them. So, I think Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead are going to be fine.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Thank god its not the real trial. Thats all I gotta sat at least
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Therumancer said:
The 6-3 ruling doesn't sound good given that they took it most seriously and apparently had some real judges acting the part.

We'll see what happens, but I'm increasingly concerned about this entire thing.
Ahhh, but only Postal was mentioned. Much more OK games will be brought up, and Portal being required in one collage course will be as well.
 

ProfessorLayton

Brotha That Will Smotha Yo Motha
Nov 6, 2008
7,453
0
0
dannymc18 said:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/underagesales/underagesales-videosales.htm

The maximum fine for selling or hiring an age-restricted video, DVD or computer game to someone who is under the age specified by the BBFC is £5,000.

Some computer games have a Pan European Games Information logo (PEGI) which is a voluntary rating. It is advised this rating is always observed and it is best practice to comply with this in the same way the BBFC rated games are controlled.
Age groupings are Universal, Parental Guidance (12), 12, 15, 18, R-18.
Exactly. If I'm 15 and try to buy a 15 rated film or game, that would be perfectly legal. But what this law is doing is making it illegal for me to buy a film or game that's even rated 12 because it contained violence of any kind.

Saucycardog said:
I am against this law and all but, do you really think that that many kids buy games behind their parents back? Many kids just have their parents buy the games for them. So, I don't think Fallout 3 and Left 4 Dead are going to be fine.
I never said that, but I know that a lot of kids buy games behind their parents' backs. It's just that it makes it even harder for a kid to buy so people will make games that are easier for kids to buy. Like I said before, imagine someone not being able to buy a Professor Layton game because they were under 18.
 

Rusty Bucket

New member
Dec 2, 2008
1,588
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
I can't explain it properly, but just watch this video and it becomes clear why it's important.

Also, how can you possibly vote that this is constitutional? It quite obviously isn't.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Okay, im slow today, anybody care to explain the reference?
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
WanderingFool said:
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Okay, im slow today, anybody care to explain the reference?
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

...a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

... got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.

Yeah. He used that line in a court case. Genius ^_^
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Banana Phone Man said:
Aww man. Why are American mock trials more fun than the one I had over here. I had to do one in a magistrates court about a woman who smashed a window. Not fun at all.
What might have added some fun to it was trying to present the window's opinion on it. Every voice should be heard, after all...even if it is tinkle tinkle.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
You haven't been around The Escapist as long as quite a few of us, and obviously not as much a participant, but I will give you a couple examples of what we have to look forward to. Feel free to reference Australia and its current games ratings, and how they have to censor every game that would otherwise fall under a Mature rating that they still do not have.
That is what we would have to look forward to if this goes through. It would start with California, but then other states would follow suit. Publishers would choose to censor their games so they would fall under the T rating in order to keep their sales up. Which would dampen the point of the game. Unless you want every game from now on made to Pokemon standards, you may want to start hoping that this law is deemed unconstitutional.
It's not just a slap on the games industry itself, but it will suppress the content that we as gamers, ages 18-99 should have a right to having. But if you want another example of the effects, consider right now this nation and others are in a recession. Passing this law would hurt sales of games, put more people out of work and do even more harm to the economy.

Common sense is an oxymoron. There is nothing common about the sense people should have, and there is no sense being applied to this law. If parents and guardians did the job that God appointed to them when they chose to have children, actions like this would not be necessary.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
 

starwarsgeek

New member
Nov 30, 2009
982
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
And in America, right now it's mostly different stores' policies to choose who to sell to. In GameStop a minor has to have direct parental permission to buy an M rated game and in other places people don't care and you can buy whatever you want. But this law would make it illegal for even someone with parental permission to buy a game like Call of Duty 1 or even Ratchet & Clank. As in a criminal offense. I personally don't agree with selling Gears of War to a 9 year old and I think it's just bad parenting to let your child play something like that but it's not up to me to decide something like that and it's certainly not up to the government who know as much about video games as I do the French stock exchange.
This is great summation of why the law is faulty. I'd like to add a couple of things to this, though.

If the Supreme Court sides with California, then the law will go into effect in California. The problem is, they are not using the ESRB for their guideline and will be much more strict. This is where the problem starts. According to an interview in gameinformer, thirteen other states support California officially. Without Free Speech protection, these states can do practically anything in relation to gaming within their state (censorship, deciding that gaming is harmful to children and making it illegal for a minor to even play one of these games with parental permission, banning certain titles, banning games altogether...) Without free speech rights, any level of government can make laws pertaining the sell and use of video games. And developers would have to keep track of ALL of them.

More than likely, most--if not all--States will get in on this. Considering it will taken care of at the State level, not Federal, there is a very high chance that developers planning on selling games in the USA will have different rules for different states. I would be pleasently suprised if this situation would not lead to another crash.

Not to mention this sets nasty precedent for limiting free speech protection in other mediums (music, film, books).

All because the California State government thinks it can rate games better than the ESRB and can parent better than the parents.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
theflyingpeanut said:
Greg Tito said:
Your Honor is correct that the study in Exhibit B does not contain effects on women. However, the article in Exhibit B does contain anecdotal evidence from a teenage girl who played the game and subsequently got pregnant because the game awoke something in her.
That guy had to be out on the piss the night before, and I mean the kind of heavy drinking where you're still half-cut the next day. I can see no other way that anyone could bring themselves to present that as evidence.
Or he realizes how retarded the law is and was having fun with it.
 

ArmorArmadillo

New member
Mar 31, 2010
231
0
0
ProfessorLayton said:
And plus since this is coming from Arnold Schwarzenegger, the guy who's been in more ultra-violent movies than I can count, is the one behind this.

And by the way, I doubt that when you were under 18 (assuming that you aren't right now) you never played an M rated video game or at least watched an R rated movie. Ratings are just parental guidelines.
Just as a note, the reason that Schwarzeneggar's name is being used is because he is the governor and due to some constitutional law doctrines you can't name the actual State in the suit, you have to name the state officer. So, this isn't necessarily "from Schwarzenegger" and he isn't "behind it", it's from the state of California (which has a lot of heavily Conservative fringe legislators of which Arnold is specifically not one) of which he is the named head.

Note that the case to overturn Prop 8 (the Gay Marriage ban) is "Perry v Schwarzenneger" even though Arnold is publicly against Prop 8.
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,426
0
0
Isn't one of the real main issues here that games are being more harshly than every other entertainment medium in a America currently?
And that it would put pressure on developers to be more careful about the content they put in games as it may or may not offend some asshat excuse of a parent?
Just what devs need. More pressure.
 

inkblood

New member
Sep 4, 2010
55
0
0
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
Game stores are already doing this out of company policy. The case going on right now is trying to make this a law, but at the same time taking away the freedom of expression away from the video game medium. this in turn would mean the other states can start tacking on additional laws for their states since videogames would have lost their right to freedom of expression. This means games could be banned, censored, and companies can be sued. think of all the religious fanatics that would want to sue assassin's creed out of existence
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Greg Tito said:
An attendee said that the only videogame that was mentioned during the proceedings was Postal, implying that all games are similar. Perhaps that's why the court voted that the law was Constitutional if it prevented Postal from getting into the hands of a child.
*facepalm*

Worst mock trial ever.

Okay, you see this guys fighting California for real? Make sure you don't let them only talk about Postal.
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
I hate to say it but at this point I kinda hope the industry uses every dirty trick and hired gun they can dig up to stop this. I've talked to a few people about this and each one of them agree's with me on this, it's un-American(sp) and the first step towards state run censorship.
 

RatRace123

Elite Member
Dec 1, 2009
6,651
0
41
This is bullshit, how can people even support this law? Furthermore, why the hell was Postal the game that they judged all games on? That'd be like the Postal movie being the film that people judge that medium on.

I hope the real case actually has some good games to represent us. We need to get Mass Effect and Bioshock up there, not Postal.
 

erztez

New member
Oct 16, 2009
252
0
0
RatRace123 said:
This is bullshit, how can people even support this law? Furthermore, why the hell was Postal the game that they judged all games on? That'd be like the Postal movie being the film that people judge that medium on.

I hope the real case actually has some good games to represent us. We need to get Mass Effect and Bioshock up there, not Postal.
Actually, we desperately need to have Hello Kitty: The Island Adventure up there. Mass Effect has all them nasty "almost half a second of partial alien nudity" scenes and Bioshock promotes "rebelion against the established system of government" and "child abduction and/or killing"...I could go on, but really, what's the point?
ROFLMAO at choosing Postal as the representative game. That's like citing Hiroshima when arguing for gun control.
 

erztez

New member
Oct 16, 2009
252
0
0
dalek sec said:
I hate to say it but at this point I kinda hope the industry uses every dirty trick and hired gun they can dig up to stop this. I've talked to a few people about this and each one of them agree's with me on this, it's un-American(sp) and the first step towards state run censorship.
Son, sad to tell you this and shatter your innocence, but you already HAVE censorship. It's just that it's Rupert Murdoch running it, not the state. Oh well, come November, there won't be any difference, will there?
 

random_bars

New member
Oct 2, 2010
585
0
0
Basically, there's three levels on this. Firstly, there's the question of, can they see through the protect-the-children guise and realize that the proposition will equate to making video games a controlled substance?

Secondly, can they realize that video games are just a medium, like books or movies, and the idea of judging every single game by looking at a couple of examples of violent games is akin to watching The Human Centipede and passing off every single other movie as the same kind of pointless bloodshed?

Finally, will they see that there's just as much artistic potential with video games as any other medium, and so making violent games illegal to buy under the age of 18 would be a violation of free speech?

To be honest, although there are three hurdles, once you see them they're blindingly obvious. As long as someone actually points this stuff out, I think we'll be fine.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Im irish and very drunk and even i can tell this law is unconstitutional.
i fixed that typo for you. no thanks needed.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Electrogecko said:
I wonder what factual and statistical evidence anyone could POSSIBLY use against video games. All these studies that show causation between violent games and real life violence could be applied to movies, books, music, paintings, and sculptures with the same results. Every little thing in this world affects whether you act out violently/sexually or not- even the type of chair you sit on at your work desk or your favorite food. It'll either make you less likely or more likely- there is nothing that has no effect.
And don't forget that linking violent crimes to video games is no harder than linking violent crimes to people drinking milk and for the same reason. Or that people have been ridiculously violent from the beginning of time. See the Celtics, the Spartans, the Vikings, the Huns, the Romans... The list goes on.

I don't really see the judges upholding this law. By and large, Judges are very intelligent. They would have to see the possible effects that this law could have not just on the medium, but on entertainment as a whole. And they have to know the history of these laws.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
There's one staggering piece of evidence here that throws this entire "Moot Court" process into the realm of nonsense.

[HEADING=3]Postal...[/HEADING]

I've been gaming for thirty years. And postal was released in 1997 and I've only even met one person who liked "Postal". That person is my brother, who is a video game hating psychopath and also a drug addict. I'm not going to say that video game designers aren't capable of spewing out the occasional game that is sick and vomit worthy. (Look up "Chiller" sometime.) But to say that all video games are on that level is just such a massively stupid statement.

But I suppose if one is trying to make an underhanded argument to the Supreme Court in order to further the progressive cause of snuffing out the constitutional rights of US citizens than painting that fallacious picture of gaming is the way to go.

God I really hope the Supreme Court has the good sense not to buy into that nonsense. Of course any mock SCotUS panel that contains the likes of Adam Liptak is not to be taken seriously.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
Im irish and very drunk and even i can tell this law is unconstitutional.
i fixed that typo for you. no thanks needed.
Hey ib not Irish! I just occasioanlly drink... and type replies at 4AM . I suppose i shoulf proably get some sleepp but im promised some very strange people i would show them how i run Crysis.
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
A game 'awoke' something in her? =S Glad no-one let her read Lolita at a young age if she's that susceptible ;-) There is just so much wrong with that statement...

But seriously, I've heard amateur high-school debate teams that have come up with more compelling points than that. 'Comedy gold' is indeed the appropriate term =D
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
I hate, HATE when they use one example of ONE person out of millions who enjoy something to try and put laws against it.

That makes no sense you're trying to oppress the majority opinion with the minority (probably wrong because you're saying a game got a girl pregnant basically, that's called a maternal clock)
 

ShakerSilver

Professional Procrastinator
Nov 13, 2009
885
0
0
/facepalm

Are they actually serious about this? I mean they represented the entire games industry by Postal!

Well obviously Postal shares so much with games like Half-Life, Katamari, and Street Fighter IV.... oh wait a minute NO IT DOESN'T!!!

Honestly, do these people understand what they're talking about? Go watch Extra Credits you hacks!
 

Mechsoap

New member
Apr 4, 2010
2,129
0
0
saying that all games are like postal is like saying all movies are like saw

same goes to books and any other medium
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
I don't know about you, but my idea of obscene differs greatly from most people I meet, let alone what Amish think. So if I'm ok with my son buying games that an Amish person doesn't want to be sold, then I'm out of luck? How does that work?
Have you never heard of the Miller Test? It what we use to judge if something is Obscene or not. Almost every video game passes all three prongs, and can not considered to be Obscene.
 

KingKamor

New member
Jul 8, 2008
169
0
0
I think that if we get the folks from Extra Credits to make an appearance, then they'll tell such a wondrous tale of how great video games are that everyone in the Supreme Court will have to shut the law down on the spot. I think that's a sound plan.

But on topic: This mock trial worries me, too. I mean, if the defense is dumb enough not to show the judges that there are games other than fucking POSTAL of all things, then we're all screwed.
 

Inglonias

New member
Aug 4, 2009
72
0
0
Part of me isn't worried about this. Its a bit silly. Another part of me is absolutely terrified that this DOES pass and the worst happens.

Yet another part of me says that even if it does pass, nothing significant will come of it (although I'm much less sure about that.)

Even then, the mountains of evidence against this law compared with the small amount for it...

I just don't even know. We'll see in November.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Rusty Bucket said:
dannymc18 said:
Isn't it all just about stopping 18-rated games being sold to under 18s? Blown completely out of proportion, and things like this don't exactly help it. It's not some sort of contentious law, it's common sense.
I can't explain it properly, but just watch this video and it becomes clear why it's important.

Also, how can you possibly vote that this is constitutional? It quite obviously isn't.
I agree. Why the heck would this lead to no more games, or no more M rated games?
 

zidine100

New member
Mar 19, 2009
1,016
0
0
If the local standard was permitted, the application of a local Amish community's understanding of obscenity would act as a censor on the whole of the nation in terms of material published on the Internet.
i hate to say this here, but im quite sure there against video games in any form (this is an assumption looking at the related material on the wiki page), and using them as a basis would result in games being well... banned from being sold to people under 18 at all. Aka games would be for over 18's only, that is if they dont decide that all ages should be governed by said rule.