Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Nurb]

Gotta love Sotomayor

- "One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?"
- "Could you get rid of rap music? Have you heard some of the lyrics of some of the rap music...?"
- "Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?"
- "So if the video producer says this is not a human being, it's an android computer simulated person, then all they have to do is put a little artificial feature on the creature and they could sell the video game?"
- "What happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle? Is that covered by your act?"

From the looks of things, regulation is out of the question.

 

[Red-Link]

"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?

You, sir, have successfully ninja'd me.

Myself as well.

 

[theevilsanta]

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.

Also Postal 3 is in the works. If it turns out to be my last chance to vicariously kill mobs of people trying to censor books and video games, I'm taking it.

 

[Fuselage]

Well I read Mr. Smith's side and at least he wasn't tripping over on his own arguments like Mr. Morazanni.

 

[Arcanist]

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!

Point-------------------------------------------You

I think you're missing something.

Nobody's arguing that it's okay to sell violent games to minors - we take issue with the implication that video games are somehow beneath the protection of the First Amendment.

Think of it like this - under this law, it would be legal to sell a copy of The Exorcist to a minor, but not a copy of BioShock.

 

[JDKJ]

Well I read Mr. Smith's side and at least he wasn't tripping over on his own arguments like Mr. Morazanni.

Smith's an old hand at the game. Of the eight or so cases that have gone to trial and/or appeal, Smith and his law firm (Jenner & Block) have been involved with most all of them. Mr. Morazanni, on the other hand, is a newbie to the game, it being his first time having a go at anything of the sort. Hardly surprising that Smith's the more nimble of the two.

 

[GUYWITHAGUN]

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!

please watch the "Extra credits" video on this topic, its summarizes pretty well our deal with this.

 

[GUYWITHAGUN]

Ugh double post. ignore ignore

 

[jedizero]

I love the fact that whenever the justices mention banning violent movies they immediately backpedal.

I wonder why?

Could it be the fact that since California is in fact, where Hollywood is located, and most of their tax income comes from movie studios who are spending ungodly amounts of money on making movies? Could it also be the fact that the Governor gets royalties every single time any of his (Very violent) movies get shown?


*thinks*

...Naaaaaw. It couldn't be.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

I love the fact that whenever the justices mention banning violent movies they immediately backpedal.

I wonder why?

Could it be the fact that since California is in fact, where Hollywood is located, and most of their tax income comes from movie studios who are spending ungodly amounts of money on making movies? Could it also be the fact that the Governor gets royalties every single time any of his (Very violent) movies get shown?


*thinks*

...Naaaaaw. It couldn't be.

Exactly! Which is why I propose that we do away with this shallow "for the children" movement and actually step up to the plate with, instead of a "California Law," the new "Hollywood Law."

The "Hollywood Law" would make the sale of media material such as movies, books, or music that is deemed offensive or obscene to minors under the age of 18 an illegal act punishable by a fine of $1000, with repeat offenders potentially having their licenses revoked.

Wait, what's that? Now because it's illegal to let a 15 year old buy Saw XI it's a breach of the first amendment?

If the Supreme Court had a brain malfunction and actually passes the California law, I sincerely hope that the EMA retorts with the suggestion that the same consideration be made regarding the film industry. I'm sure that if it is acceptable to base all video games off of trash like Postal 2, then it would be perfectly fine to assume that every twelve year-old in America has access to view movies like Saw, Hostel, and other "gore porn" movies.

 

[Telperion]

Nobody's arguing that it's okay to sell violent games to minors - we take issue with the implication that video games are somehow beneath the protection of the First Amendment.

Think of it like this - under this law, it would be legal to sell a copy of The Exorcist to a minor, but not a copy of BioShock.

Funny how most of the discussion was about a scenario where a minor goes into a store and buys a product that includes mutilation, torture, killing, urinating and such. Your point about the Exorcist was a mere footnote somewhere in there that got lost in the outcry of "Games need to be rated! We need to protect our children!", which was then countered with some clunky and hard to follow references to case related to the First Amendment. I don't think I'm missing any points, because I read the entire transcript. Right to the end the Justices didn't really want to touch the whole First Amendment thing, which is funny since that's what the other side's arguments were based on.

They even said to Mr. Smith on several occasions that (I'm paraphrasing here) "you don't want to go there"

 

[Telperion]

On a related note: I watched the Extra Credits episode on "Free Speech" again.
I think the majority of that episode is, at best, speculative fear mongering.
You can't honestly tell me that you have a magic crystal ball that shows you "the death of creativity" in this medium, if this law passes. I think that part goes beyond speculative fear mongering, and straight to silly.

Whether or not the this particular law passes the end result will be the same: the sky is not falling.

 

[JDKJ]

Nobody's arguing that it's okay to sell violent games to minors - we take issue with the implication that video games are somehow beneath the protection of the First Amendment.

Think of it like this - under this law, it would be legal to sell a copy of The Exorcist to a minor, but not a copy of BioShock.

Funny how most of the discussion was about a scenario where a minor goes into a store and buys a product that includes mutilation, torture, killing, urinating and such. Your point about the Exorcist was a mere footnote somewhere in there that got lost in the outcry of "Games need to be rated! We need to protect our children!", which was then countered with some clunky and hard to follow references to case related to the First Amendment. I don't think I'm missing any points, because I read the entire transcript. Right to the end the Justices didn't really want to touch the whole First Amendment thing, which is funny since that's what the other side's arguments were based on.

They even said to Mr. Smith on several occasions that (I'm paraphrasing here) "you don't want to go there"

And that may well be because the First Amendment may not be the absolute door-slammer that Smith's position makes it out to be. There are any number of cases where the Court has carved out exceptions to the protections of the First Amendment when the interests or conduct of children are at issue. I suspect that the more compelling basis in the mind of certain Justices is that of "vagueness" as found in the analogous case of US v. Stevens (i.e., California's law does precious little to meaningfully define "violent content" as a practical matter). But either way, you gotta give the Court full credit for cautioning a litigant before it that they may be about to shoot themselves in the foot. Cold-hearted bastard that I am, I'd just sit there and thoroughly enjoy watching them shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[JDKJ]

On a related note: I watched the Extra Credits episode on "Free Speech" again.
I think the majority of that episode is, at best, speculative fear mongering.
You can't honestly tell me that you have a magic crystal ball that shows you "the death of creativity" in this medium, if this law passes. I think that part goes beyond speculative fear mongering, and straight to silly.

Whether or not the this particular law passes the end result will be the same: the sky is not falling.

Did you look overhead before making that claim? Not to say that the sky is in fact falling, but you never know for sure without beforehand checking the possibility.

 

[JDKJ]

Man, the transcript reads like the script for Twelve Angry Men.

That's how the justice system works, my good man. Just watch a televised debate in the Houses of Parliament. It's like a frickin' Religion and Politics debate, but without the intelligence (yes, I am aware of the irony in that sentence).

Personally, I don't like how they judge an entire genre and potential medium of art from a single game (Postal II) that doesn't represent the medium as a whole. Hardly any of the iconic games in the medium involves urinating on the corpses of terrorists, blowing up schoolgirls, or shooting cats from a gun without regard to animal safety laws.
I do like the logic coming from the judges though.

Thing is though, it didn't seem to. Most of the unresolved parts revolved around what you would consider not art, just look at this quote from everyone's favourite man Scalia:

Excuse me. If it has a plot it has artistic value, is that going to be the test for artistic value? Anything that has a plot?

You gotta love Scalia. Take too long in answering that question and he'll be the one to tell you: "Of course it isn't going to be the test. And the plot sickens."

 

[Diddy_King]

If you ask me it seems like our case came out ahead here. Sure they knit-picked both arguments, but when they did it for our case it was more of "Ok, let me get this straight and figure out EXACTLY what you're saying here." When they asked about California's argument it was more like "Are you honestly this stupid and do you realize that your argument is vague and doesn't make any sense..."

I'm also quite surprised at how open-minded the Justices were. Considering the age of these people and how likely older people are to go the route of "it's different, we fear it" they were very open-minded indeed.

Waiting for February is gonna suck, good thing there are a couple games coming out between then and now to pass the time with .

 

[MrHero17]

I read the whole thing and I like what Sotamayor was hitting on at the end when she asked if acts of violence committed against a Vulcan in a game would be okay. If take a game that California would ban and giving the characters within it long ears and green blood makes the game perfectly okay then their proposed law really doesn't seem like it'd have a chance. I think she pointed to an easily exploitable loophole within California's law.