Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The Founding Fathers also never forsaw movies. Or Television. Yet those are protected. So trying to use this argument against games is stupid.

And about the "why shouldn't they pass a law to keep violence out of the hands of 10 year olds?", well the industry already does that. Better then any other industry ever.

I think that is the problem right there they try to hard to please people. I think the gaming industry is eventualy going to haev to put its balls on the table and put things like Taliban in games and be allowed to do things as violent as a Serbian film to show it can be excepted as a creative medium. Although the latter is probably and an awful example I picked it because it is probably the most extremely sexual violent movie I can think of.

 

[fierydemise]

In case people don't want to read the transcript here is the audio of oral arguments.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=08-1448

 

[Irridium]

The Founding Fathers also never forsaw movies. Or Television. Yet those are protected. So trying to use this argument against games is stupid.

And about the "why shouldn't they pass a law to keep violence out of the hands of 10 year olds?", well the industry already does that. Better then any other industry ever.

I think that is the problem right there they try to hard to please people. I think the gaming industry is eventualy going to haev to put its balls on the table and put things like Taliban in games and be allowed to do things as violent as a Serbian film to show it can be excepted as a creative medium. Although the latter is probably and an awful example I picked it because it is probably the most extremely sexual violent movie I can think of.

They don't need to be that extreme, they just have to stop caving to controversy. EA removing the name "taliban" from the multiplayer is a prime example of this. If the people making/publishing the game don't feel games can tackle real-world issues, then why the hell should the general public?

Actually Six Days in Fallujah would be a better example, as the MoH controversy was only because a multiplayer faction was the Taliban. Point still stands though. If the people making/publishing the games want people to take them seriously as a medium, they have got to stop caving into controversy.

 

[theultimateend]

What surprises me above all else is that things like this go to court.

Because, really...there are people that this seems sensible to?

It's troubling for how long we've had so many laws and beliefs structured around nothing more than emotion. That even when reality directly conflicts with these things nobody cares, they just keep beating that drum.

Violent games have no greater negative effect on children than any other stimulus they experience good or bad. The best studies have ever found is that if you are already highly likely to do something incredibly destructive, the games may aid in that, however so will films and literature and music. Because you are an unstable person.

Overall violence in games has it hyper realism (relative to the past) and violence amongst youths has dropped (though coverage when it does happen has risen). This seems more like a law to caudal folks who get all their data from 24 hours news rather than the actual real world.

I'm going to stop because I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir since nobody around here is that stupid.

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.

I agree with everything I understood, the only note I have is that the "effect" doesn't exist.

There is no rise in violent crimes amongst youth with the rise of violent video games.

But the confirmation bias thing probably nails it, one kid hurts one other kid in one state out of millions of kids, the News drills that story into the ground till it punctures the earth's core.

 

[thedeathscythe]

God, what do they write that on? It's seriously hard as shit to read. Do they still use type writers? On page 11 but struggling with making out words every sentence it seems (even zoomed in a bit).

 

[lacktheknack]

It doesn't look like the argument is whether video games are obscene. In fact, it looks more like the justices against the law are trying to show that the law is redundant and that parents already fill this role.

Maybe if they FINALLY get this point across, this case will stop popping up every two years.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The Founding Fathers also never forsaw movies. Or Television. Yet those are protected. So trying to use this argument against games is stupid.

And about the "why shouldn't they pass a law to keep violence out of the hands of 10 year olds?", well the industry already does that. Better then any other industry ever.

I think that is the problem right there they try to hard to please people. I think the gaming industry is eventualy going to haev to put its balls on the table and put things like Taliban in games and be allowed to do things as violent as a Serbian film to show it can be excepted as a creative medium. Although the latter is probably and an awful example I picked it because it is probably the most extremely sexual violent movie I can think of.

They don't need to be that extreme, they just have to stop caving to controversy. EA removing the name "taliban" from the multiplayer is a prime example of this. If the people making/publishing the game don't feel games can tackle real-world issues, then why the hell should the general public?

Actually Six Days in Fallujah would be a better example, as the MoH controversy was only because a multiplayer faction was the Taliban. Point still stands though. If the people making/publishing the games want people to take them seriously as a medium, they have got to stop caving into controversy.

Well not even just that they need to sit down and say "ok we genuinely going to make a serious game and want it taken seriously". If that game happens to be of a mature rating fair enough children should be playing it anyway. You wouldn't let your Child of 10 watch Misery or something similar(usually) why let them go out and buy a game like postal I still think it does come back to parents.

 

[Irridium]

The Founding Fathers also never forsaw movies. Or Television. Yet those are protected. So trying to use this argument against games is stupid.

And about the "why shouldn't they pass a law to keep violence out of the hands of 10 year olds?", well the industry already does that. Better then any other industry ever.

I think that is the problem right there they try to hard to please people. I think the gaming industry is eventualy going to haev to put its balls on the table and put things like Taliban in games and be allowed to do things as violent as a Serbian film to show it can be excepted as a creative medium. Although the latter is probably and an awful example I picked it because it is probably the most extremely sexual violent movie I can think of.

They don't need to be that extreme, they just have to stop caving to controversy. EA removing the name "taliban" from the multiplayer is a prime example of this. If the people making/publishing the game don't feel games can tackle real-world issues, then why the hell should the general public?

Actually Six Days in Fallujah would be a better example, as the MoH controversy was only because a multiplayer faction was the Taliban. Point still stands though. If the people making/publishing the games want people to take them seriously as a medium, they have got to stop caving into controversy.

Well not even just that they need to sit down and say "ok we genuinely going to make a serious game and want it taken seriously". If that game happens to be of a mature rating fair enough children should be playing it anyway. You wouldn't let your Child of 10 watch Misery or something similar(usually) why let them go out and buy a game like postal I still think it does come back to parents.

A problem with your example is that they wouldn't even be able to buy Postal, because retail stores all have policies of not selling violent games to minors. If a kid gets hold of a violent game, he either A) had a parent buy it. Or B) got it from a friend, who also had a parent buy it.

There are others but those are the main ones. Your right though, it does come back to the parents, who should be taking responsibility but aren't. Great examples they're setting for their kids. You don't need to take responsibility for your actions, just blame it on the newest form of entertainment.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

As a British person I really shouldn't care about this.
As a lawyer though I am very interested in how it turns out.

Of course here games can't be sold to minors anyway, so it's not the end of the world.

 

[D Moness]

RapeLay comes to mind. So does Bible Black and some others I've heard of, but can't remember their names.

but those are sexually oriented graphic novels. Are they really classified as a game? or a form of hentai? which is porn in my eyes

From what I've read about RapeLay whenever the subject's popped up here, it is an actual game. Insofar as Bible Black is concerned, I wouldn't know one way or the other how to classify it to be honest.

I see them more as adult visual novels. Since it is more just a plain erotic story with visuals(and sound).

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

A problem with your example is that they wouldn't even be able to buy Postal, because retail stores all have policies of not selling violent games to minors. If a kid gets hold of a violent game, he either A) had a parent buy it. Or B) got it from a friend, who also had a parent buy it.

There are others but those are the main ones. Your right though, it does come back to the parents, who should be taking responsibility but aren't. Great examples they're setting for their kids. You don't need to take responsibility for your actions, just blame it on the newest form of entertainment.

I see what you mean with the flaw in my logic but the parents do have to start taking responsibility and start doing their job eventually. Any parent that is unaware their child is playing a game like Manhunt, Postal or Rapelay is seriously out of touch with their child.

 

[Plurralbles]

not until February?! Gah... I'm glad though, the court needs a lot oftime. I'm glad oen branch of our government takes its damn tiem on important matters...

 

[Plurralbles]

they shold really ban the Power rangers. It made me hit my grandma when I was 8.

and no, it was the show, not me just being an immature tit. Totally.

 

[ckam]

When did we have a game where you set a girl on fire and then urinate her? I remember this being a part of a civil rights movie, but not a game.

 

[superbatranger]

This seems like a perfect way for me to keep up to date on the case, especially when it's not being reported where I live.

Edit: Light gray font on white paper. yay >_<

 

[Iandiaeufaieubfeuihfi]

Intense. This should be titled Scalia pwns a douche.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

"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?

Founding Fathers could easily envision graphic novels... it would be a "Picture Book" in their mind. Its simply a 2D image, and would be under the same part as paintings,drawings etc.

Admittingly, that is true, but do you honestly think they envisioned graphic novels becoming an entirely new medium? Picture books were rather rare prior to late 19th century. Even then, they were primarily used for potraying children's tales; somehow, I seriously doubt they even imagined it could be used for something like the Watchmen. So I honestly wouldn't be suprised if the "Founding Fathers" just counted them under "books", if they even considered them to begin with.

Anyway, that is besides the point. The point I was trying to make was that ever since the First Amendment was written, we have witnessed the birth of many new mediums. Yet, even though these mediums were never envisioned by the "Founding Fathers", they were still (eventually) recognised to have the same rights as the old ones. In light of this, Alito's logic that games are an exception beacuse they are a newer medium doesn't hold up...afterall, by that same logic, any medium that came into being after 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified) should be excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment.