Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Baneat]

Grabbed a random page, the guy that's arguing for censorship is getting torn to shreds at every corner, I don't think they're gonna win this debate.

Reading further, he's really getting ripped into, none of his points stand. I have to say, comparing this to a televised British parliamentary event, they are much more argumentative, I quite like it, actually. In TV, it was basically hide your intentions by attacking the other person personally.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Baneat]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

That's not quite fair. The discussion on what is truly obscene. A cornerstone of libertarianism is to allow people to express personal liberties under the condition that it is not causing harm to others/restricting their liberties. The people asking for censorship genuinely believe that the games are causing harm to other people, which is concluded from a fallacious argument, the most notable of which is confirmation bias, inflation of numbers' relevance, and the cause therefore effect fallacy.

 

[JDKJ]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

I though everyone knew that the United States of America died with Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

I though everyone knew that the United States of America died with Abraham Lincoln.

Teddy Roosevelt > Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt once got shot in the chest, proceeded to give a 90 minute long speech and they said "Maybe I should get this wound checked out", the professional marksman who shot him later went mad.

Teddy Roosevelt responded to a young cavalry recruit that was complaining on riding 25 miles daily as training... by riding 100 miles at age 50.

Teddy Roosevelt kept a Badger as a pet in the White House.

Teddy Roosevelt gathered the most votes as a THIRD party candidate in US history, he was notorious for considering the "mainstream" alternatives to be corrupt and weak.

Teddy Roosevelt mediated and helped end the Russo-Japanese War.

The teddy bear is named after a story involving Roosevelt where, after him and his buddies having entrapped a damn ADULT BEAR, Theodore refused to shoot the beast claiming that there was no sport in hunting a trapped animal (How many people do you know that say something like: "That's no challenge, release the bear!"?)

Theodore Roosevelt founded most of the Nature Reserves, National Parks and Hunting Reserves in the US.

Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Price (back when it meant something).

Most people already know of the Rough Riders and their historic charge up San Juan Hill, but few know that, since their horses had to be left behind, the Riders made this charge entirely on foot.

He had asthma while growing up, then he got rid of it (Pure MAN-POWER)

Commentary made after Roosevelt's death by a fellow politician: "Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight."

No contest

 

[Atmos Duality]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

Due process is due process.
Without it, I can assure you that we would be far worse off, no matter how idiotic the topic might seem.

As much as I disagree with this special interest group and their law, not giving them a chance to present their argument (flawed and stupid as it is) is just as unfair as the censorship they want to propose.

 

[JDKJ]

The fact that this is even being discussed and the possibility of censorship is present, assures me that the true United States of America died with Theodore Roosevelt.

I though everyone knew that the United States of America died with Abraham Lincoln.

Teddy Roosevelt > Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt once got shot in the chest, proceeded to give a 90 minute long speech and they said "Maybe I should get this wound checked out", the professional marksman who shot him later went mad.

Teddy Roosevelt responded to a young cavalry recruit that was complaining on riding 25 miles daily as training... by riding 100 miles at age 50.

Teddy Roosevelt kept a Badger as a pet in the White House.

Teddy Roosevelt gathered the most votes as a THIRD party candidate in US history, he was notorious for considering the "mainstream" alternatives to be corrupt and weak.

Teddy Roosevelt mediated and helped end the Russo-Japanese War.

The teddy bear is named after a story involving Roosevelt where, after him and his buddies having entrapped a damn ADULT BEAR, Theodore refused to shoot the beast claiming that there was no sport in hunting a trapped animal (How many people do you know that say something like: "That's no challenge, release the bear!"?)

Theodore Roosevelt founded most of the Nature Reserves, National Parks and Hunting Reserves in the US.

Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Price (back when it meant something).

Most people already know of the Rough Riders and their historic charge up San Juan Hill, but few know that, since their horses had to be left behind, the Riders made this charge entirely on foot.

He had asthma while growing up, then he got rid of it (Pure MAN-POWER)

Commentary made after Roosevelt's death by a fellow politician: "Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight."

No contest

Abe Lincoln once got shot in the head, said, "Shit, I've been shot in the head!!" and that was the last thing Abe Lincoln ever said.

Teddy Roosevelt wins.

 

[zfactor]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

 

[JDKJ]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

Is that what all the blathering's about? I thought they were arguing whether to be or not to be. But, then again, they did kinda lose me about half way down the first page.

 

[zfactor]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

Is that what all the blathering's about? I thought they were arguing whether to be or not to be. But, then again, they did kinda lose me about half way down the first page.

They are arguing if the government can mandate that such a sticker must be applied to applicable games.

And I say no they can't.

 

[mr_rubino]

I just read the whole damn thing, and I got to say: Americans, what a bunch of crazy people!

If something is R18+ then of course you shouldn't sell it to a minor!
What is there to even talk about? This whole thing is just nuts. Crazy!

Meh, we kinda got past caring about what the Angles say 200+ years ago.
We know you guys are used to letting the government be your mommies and daddies, but we Americans value personal liberty and tend to think the parenting role belongs to the parent. Hence the R and M ratings: parents choose whether their children should be exposed to something or not, not "ARBITRARYAGERESTRICTIONBIGBROTHERSAYSSO!!!" That's restricted to NC-17/X/AO.
Plus to continue this I'd have to go into a whole spiel about the very convoluted question of what constitutes obscenity and why you couldn't see the difference between "obscene" and "something I don't personally find enjoyable" if I served it to you on a bed of lettuce and blah blah blah.

I'll just close with: "Emotional abuse: When logical and provable arguments just aren't working out."

EDIT: To clarify, if California's parents are lazy enough to defer raising their kids to the government because it's hard, it's probably not surprising since they are, after all, from California. Anyone who has the slightest tinge of libertarianism in them should be against this, but unfortunately, laziness crosses party lines.
Summary: Boomers and Gen-Xers are the fattest, most useless prosperity-gorged generations to blight America's history.

 

[samsonguy920]

Wish I could download that as a PDF, as it is it is hard to read for me for some reason. It will take a while. But what has been shared here leaves me with a bit of hope that there is sense on SCOTUS's benches.
Unless they decide to put in an early verdict on this, February is a long way away all of a sudden....

i find it incredibly unfair that the only game shown to the court is postal 2. most games stay away from postal 2 since the developers don't feel right about making such games.

Well Postal 2 wasn't the only example, but it is in the nature of witchhunters(I dare anyone to say this isn't a witchhunt:'Violence against aliens and artificial lifeforms would not be covered under the act' That's cutting a very skewed line there) to damn an entire culture or industry because of one act.
So far most of the justices are showing themselves to be a lot more objectionable than I was giving some of them credit for taking into account previous cases. I have to wonder if halfway in Mr. Morrazzini was starting to lose faith in some of his arguments. One would hope so as weak as they really are.

ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Thanks!

 

[JDKJ]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

Is that what all the blathering's about? I thought they were arguing whether to be or not to be. But, then again, they did kinda lose me about half way down the first page.

They are arguing if the government can mandate that such a sticker must be applied to applicable games.

And I say no they can't.

I knew that. Colm Coss has inspired me to try my hand at trolling. I'm starting out with baby steps, but I think that I'll be at a full gallop in no time.

On a less trollish note, since the ESRB started rating games in 1994, there've been more than 15,000 titles rated by them and of which only 23 have earned an "AO" rating. For all practical purposes, there's hardly anything that gets submitted to them any more that'll qualify for an "AO" rating because publishers know it's a kiss of death. Ain't nobody trying to develop and publish a game that Target won't carry because it's been AO-rated. Bad for business.

 

[zfactor]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

Is that what all the blathering's about? I thought they were arguing whether to be or not to be. But, then again, they did kinda lose me about half way down the first page.

They are arguing if the government can mandate that such a sticker must be applied to applicable games.

And I say no they can't.

I knew that. Colm Coss has inspired me to try my hand at trolling. I'm starting out with baby steps, but I think that I'll be at a full gallop in no time.

On a less trollish note, since the ESRB started rating games in 1994, there've been more than 15,000 titles rated by them and of which only 23 have earned an "AO" rating. For all practical purposes, there's hardly anything that gets submitted to them any more that'll qualify for an "AO" rating because publishers know it's a kiss of death. Ain't nobody trying to develop and publish a game that Target won't carry because it's been AO-rated. Bad for business.

Most of them are pron (yes I misspelled it) games anyway, sold online.

NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW OR ANYTHING >_>

 

[JDKJ]

Ain't it?! You'd think they'd know enough to just take a page outta the Brit's playbook and pass a law making it emotional abuse to sell an R18+ game (even though that rating doesn't exist in America) to a minor. Daft buggers!

Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.

Which is why I say to Hell with all that blather. Just slap the tried and true "Warning: Sales to Minors of this Product Will Cause Emotional Abuse" sticker on the damned thing and call it a day.

Good thing that's what they are arguing (to slap 18+ sticker or not to slap 18+ sticker?). And the ESRB has an "Adults Only" rating (18+), but most retailers don't carry games with it.

Is that what all the blathering's about? I thought they were arguing whether to be or not to be. But, then again, they did kinda lose me about half way down the first page.

They are arguing if the government can mandate that such a sticker must be applied to applicable games.

And I say no they can't.

I knew that. Colm Coss has inspired me to try my hand at trolling. I'm starting out with baby steps, but I think that I'll be at a full gallop in no time.

On a less trollish note, since the ESRB started rating games in 1994, there've been more than 15,000 titles rated by them and of which only 23 have earned an "AO" rating. For all practical purposes, there's hardly anything that gets submitted to them any more that'll qualify for an "AO" rating because publishers know it's a kiss of death. Ain't nobody trying to develop and publish a game that Target won't carry because it's been AO-rated. Bad for business.

Most of them are pron (yes I misspelled it) games anyway, sold online.

NOT THAT I WOULD KNOW OR ANYTHING >_>

Yeah. Right. That's like my buddy who tells me what goes on at the booty-shake club but also swears he never actually visits the booty-shake club. His other buddy visit the booty-shake club and tells him all about it. That's how he knows what's going on at the booty-shake club. Yeah. Right.

 

[Demodeus]

[...] videogames that include such acts as setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them [...]

Someone has been playing a lot of Postal 2.

 

[GUYWITHAGUN]

Spoiler

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, what about a law that
says you can't sell to minors a video game -- it doesn't
care what the plot is, but no video game in which the
minor commits violent acts of maiming, killing, setting
people on fire? What about that? Would that -- would
that be regulating speech?

MR. SMITH: Well, of course, Your Honor.
That's exactly what -- what -

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's not speech. You were
saying, you just can't let the kid maim -- maim, kill,
or set on fire.

MR. SMITH: I'm sorry?

JUSTICE SCALIA: What the law would be
directed at is not the plot, not the video game itself,
but the child's act of committing murder, maiming, and
so forth.

I think this is question absolutely ridiculous, you can't just regulate ONE part of a video game. thats like saying that a person cannot come in this building with arms. you can argue that we are just restricting access by arms but the result is that the rest of the person cannot enter the building. the violence in a video game is only one part of the overall narrative, by restricting access to the violence you also restrict access to the narrative, the plot, the character and the art which the player might find a beautiful and enriching experience.

 

[D Moness]

Thank God for Postal 2.

Do you know why? Because when this ridiculous law is struck down it means that this line of argument (that violent games are harmful to minors) will almost certainly never be successful in censoring video games. You can't make a game more raunchy, violent, sadistic, and overall repugnant than Postal 2. Running with Scissors, the developers of P2, is intentionally trying to provoke a response by censorship groups - the game encourages mass murders of book and video game protesters, and pissing on their corpses after you burn them to death. If they can't censor the "deviant" violence in P2, than they can't censor any game for its violence. Thank God for Running with Scissors and setting the bar so high (or low I guess) that it effectively protects the entire medium from this kind of censorship.

That was my first thought when i read they used Postal 2 as a reference to why they want games banned. If they take the worst of the worst and it does get shot down, the they will never find another game that they can use. Like any game developer would make anything that would be worst then postal 2.

 

[Vrach]

"We have here a new - a new medium that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time when the First Amendment was ratified," Alito said. "So this presents a question that could not have been specifically contemplated at the time when the First Amendment was adopted. And to say, well, because nobody was - because descriptions in a book of violence were not considered a category of speech that was appropriate for limitation at the time when the First Amendment was violated is entirely artificial."

I am not a US citizen, but that argument is just bull. I am preety sure the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned cinema, radio and graphic novels either. Does that mean all those mediums should be exempt from First Amendment protection as well?

I was thinking this exact thing as well, that's just utter bullshit and while I'd have expected it to be fired from the side of the lawyers, coming from the mouth of a Supreme Court judge is just really disappointing. Free speech is supposed to be an American right and if you can redefine it's meaning to suit whatever the fuck you want it to mean, then it becomes meaningless. Then again, to quote George Carlin "they aren't rights, they're privileges. If someone can take away your rights at a time when you need them the most then that isn't a right at all."

I hope that one of the justices pointed out what an effect this can really have (what we've discussed here at great lengths, I won't go over it again) on the gaming industry as a whole, not even limited to just the US. What they're deciding, is the artistic value of an entire medium and writing it off just because they weren't born in time to grow up and live with it themselves is really a poor representation of the American justice system.

I really hope it goes well and they throw the entire argument out hard on it's ass. I understand compromise is the option and some of the things they discussed are reasonable, but the fact is, letting up to this kind of abuse of law would set a really horrible precedent and possibly start a snowball effect. They need to also accept that they're working within their own law and that the system has a duty to stay consistent and thus fair. Any violence demonstrated in games they use to tunnel vision that stupid belief is just as well shown in books, comics, music and most importantly (as it's the closest medium) movies. And yet all those are protected and their protection is even thought of as common sense. It is baffling that it's so hard for them to put 2 and 2 together and see that there's no significant difference that would require this kind of law to regulate.

If you wanna talk about Postal 2 (as they literally can not come up with more than a few examples of extreme video game violence) why don't we bring in similar movies into play? Let's talk about "A Serbian Film", do you care to show me a video game that has you being a porn star in a studio that cuts off your partner's head mid-intercourse? Look at Salo, Human Centipede, all of that bullshit (pardon my opinion, it's just as it is, I do understand that there's probably some background there that's artistically valuable, I just have no personal interest in it and it's relevant to the argument here), how are those any less violent/disgusting/etc. than games? Look at the Brittish black humour movies and series throughout the 80's and 90's. There are tons of examples in other mediums, yet they still receive the protection under the 1st Amendment, so what exactly sets games so far apart other than being a new medium that technophobes are always afraid of?

 

[GUYWITHAGUN]

Like any game developer would make anything that would be worst then postal 2.

Postal 2 was Linux Game Publishing's fastest selling game ever. its more likely than you think. I'm just saying.