Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Spacewolf]

I would like to see them provide a game that lets you hit children over the head with a shovel while they pleed for you to stop or a game where you can sexually abuse a woman/man/anything before lighting them on fire and pissing on it

 

[Fuselage]

Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

that government shouldn't have the right to keep videogames that include such acts as setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them out of the hands of ten-year-olds.




Permalink

What game lets you do that?
They are judging the fact that they think i just go ahead and buy a game like rapelay and just give it to any random kid on the street, And what game does let you set schoogirls on fire and urinate on them? Postal 2? We have grown up so much and you are still judging us on our old shames....

 

[dalek sec]

But... for those who may be concerned, i've seen transcripts or listened to Audio recordings of these arguments being presented, and this sounds pretty normal. The justices tend to pick at the arguments of both sides quite alot, so you guys should not freak out too much seeing these guys smack around the gaming argument here. That's just what these justices do.

Thanks Yurenia, I was a tad bit worried by them going after the argument there. I really do hope they meant a bit of what they said when they busted that prick Morazzini's chops when he was speaking. The man has a weak case and he knows it. So as I've said in this thread before, I'll pray and hope that we gamers are in the right this time.

 

[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.

 

[archvile93]

Why should games not be rectricted by the government? Because this suggests they have the right to censor and control all other media. A government that controls the media controls the minds of the people. These are how police states are formed.

 

[Fuselage]

Personally i think the Games industry is at a natural disadvantage in this case no matter how baseline retarded the law is. The justices have no experience of the interactive medium and the tendancy is to fear the unknown and the new. If there is anywhere the 1st ammendment doesn't mean shit it's the supreme court.

Justice Scalia seemed to know what he was talking about

 

[The Wykydtron]

Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

 

[Josh123914]

Y'know what I feel is unfair is that they take postal 2, a game from 5-10 years ago and use it as the example for modern videogames in the wsestern market. That would be like using a 50's porno as a representative for hollywood movies today, also

I read the whole thing, and it was quite a good read. Obviously the justices have to question both arguments as much as possible, but it seemed to display the weakness of the opposition's argument when Roberts (and others, but him mostly) had to keep falling back on the, "Lighting schoolgirls on fire...REALLY?" argument every time he made a point.

What game is he referencing? if your going to use a leg to stand up on atleast SHOW us the leg.

 

[Fuselage]

Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Does that mean Mr Morazinni is Edgeworth?

 

[Ekonk]

This makes me very happy. It also heightens my view of America(ns). Go, Supreme Court!

And I must admit that whenever they mention Postal 2 I can't help but feel a bit 'Yeah, sorry guys, our bad', because that game is disgusting. Really disgusting. I feel bad for playing it.

Otherwise, fuck video game haters.

 

[Gerrawn]

Confused european here! Are we winning or...?

And on a somewhat related note:

Spoiler

 

[mjc0961]

Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Does that mean Mr Morazinni is Edgeworth?

Let's hope he's Winston Payne.

 

[Thorvan]

My Favorite Qoute of the Transcript by JUSTICE SCALIA

"JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is there -- you've been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problem for the seller to know what's good and what's bad. California -- does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there -- is there any kind of opinion that the -- that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can't?

MR. MORAZZINI: Not that I'm aware of, Justice Ginsburg.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship."

I just read this, and I literally fell out my chair laughing. Scalia's got some really stinging, awesome lines. He's like a First Amendment Spiderman.

 

[Deminobody]

I think the reason there was such a focus on Postal 2 was that if there ever was a piece of evidence that it is possible for video game makers to be able to produce and release games with a blatant fixation on senseless violence, then Postal 2 fulfills that role. The argument that such games exist and can make it in to the hands of impressionable minors is one that is central to the success of the California law. They needed to convince the court that such games were a real threat to the well being of minors through their content and accessibility.

I believe that's why the counsel for the video game industry tried to assure the justices that there is not, and likely will never be, a situation where games like Postal 2 are secretly invading the homes of minors against the wills of their parents and actively subverting them to violent tendencies. To be successful in convincing the court that there is no problem which requires regulating would completely invalidate a large part of the law's support.

After reading the whole transcript I feel pretty confident that video games will come out of this one unscathed.

 

[Fuhjem]

I read the whole thing. I think we made a strong case. The opposition's claims were constantly tripping over each other. I'm pretty sure we have a really good chance of succeeding here.

 

[-Ulven-]

I think the mad country should be cleaning out the real world violence first... if they want to protect people taht bad -.-

And also... I think the amendements should be read anew to state a couple of breaches on it

(Hinting to the one about religion and state here)