Alright, so it seems like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Scalia are against the law for a number of reasons. Roberts and Alito don't seem as ready to dismiss the idea that states should be able to regulate games. I think it's much harder to tell what the rest of the Justices are thinking, and could therefore go either way. My guess is that this law is going to get struck down, but I expect to see some language in either the main opinion or concurrences that allows California and other states to draft narrower laws in an attempt to pass the strict scrutiny requirement.
Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Happy BirthdayProfessorLayton said:
I hope you enjoy your day.OT: Postal 2 does not equal games. There are just anomalies, as there is with anything. If you don't think movies don't have things like this, search A Serbian Film on Wikipedia. (not for the feint hearted)
But i'll read the transcript later.
...what game can you light a school girl on fire and then piss on her?... the sims? or is it one of those freaky hentai AO games?
Alright.... I just read the entire thing word for word.
Based on what I see, and on my own knowledge about how these cases go, I am thinking that this is going to get struck down. It probably won't be a totally decisive ruling (aka, they might leave some room for some degree of regulation), but I don't think that the California Law as it stands will survive in its present form. It just covers way too much.
On a side-note, I suddenly have realized once again why I actually liked my ConLaw classes. I like how these justices always seem to kick around anything that questionably does not make any sort of sense. Not just in this case, but in so many others before it. It is yet another example of my long-held belief that SCOTUS is the most sane part of the American Government. Always have been, and hopefully always will be.
Based on what I see, and on my own knowledge about how these cases go, I am thinking that this is going to get struck down. It probably won't be a totally decisive ruling (aka, they might leave some room for some degree of regulation), but I don't think that the California Law as it stands will survive in its present form. It just covers way too much.
On a side-note, I suddenly have realized once again why I actually liked my ConLaw classes. I like how these justices always seem to kick around anything that questionably does not make any sort of sense. Not just in this case, but in so many others before it. It is yet another example of my long-held belief that SCOTUS is the most sane part of the American Government. Always have been, and hopefully always will be.
When I saw this first I was like-
But then i was like-
Good to see we're getting pretty far in this battle.
But then i was like-
Good to see we're getting pretty far in this battle.
Having now read most of the article, and having my only real image of the Supreme Court prior to this being their depiction on Boston Legal, I can honestly say they were depicted pretty damn accurately. I mean, it sounds like an absolute blast to be a Supreme Court Justice.
It seems like they liked our side of the case more, but I guess we won't know for sure until they rule.
It seems like they liked our side of the case more, but I guess we won't know for sure until they rule.
I'm still curious as to why this is even an issue with the ESRB in place (which, as we all know, has a higher rate of compliance than any other medium).
All I know is that if we win, I will sing from the fucking rooftops.
All I know is that if we win, I will sing from the fucking rooftops.
I've just finished reading today's transcripts -- it seems Scalia is defiantly on "our" side (*twitch*) I'm guessing Alito, Kagan and Sotomayor will possibly rule against the law also. Chief Justice Robers is probably going to side with the law; I honestly couldn't understand Justice Breyer after reading his statement several times but judging by the context it seems he's not a fan of video games either --- the other three didn't talk much so I couldn't say but it seems at this point that we're going to win this case. Worst case scenario, Roberts, Breyer and the last three vote to uphold the law leaving a 5-4 loss for video games but that would require all three who didn't express much opinion voting to uphold -- if even one of them vote to overturn the law or abstain then we still win.
That crock of bull about the founding fathers not knowing about video games is the most roundabouts argument I've ever seen.
Disregarding that our country is already based around the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech wasn't just some spur of the moment idea. The founding fathers added it because it is an unalienable right given to us by our creator. Whether you believe in god or not is irrelevant. Everyone, regardless of whether a country endorses it or not, has that right as a human being and should be free to express it. America thinks of itself as a forward thinking country. Well...were this to pass, they would prove the contrary of our country.
And like Mechsoap said, nearly all developers turn tail and run from Postal 2.
Disregarding that our country is already based around the freedom of speech, the freedom of speech wasn't just some spur of the moment idea. The founding fathers added it because it is an unalienable right given to us by our creator. Whether you believe in god or not is irrelevant. Everyone, regardless of whether a country endorses it or not, has that right as a human being and should be free to express it. America thinks of itself as a forward thinking country. Well...were this to pass, they would prove the contrary of our country.
And like Mechsoap said, nearly all developers turn tail and run from Postal 2.
Judging from the Joystiq article linked (I haven't read the full document), I would guess that it's fairly evenly balanced. The Justices ripped both sides equally.
And Scalia, regardless of his views and principles, seems like an complete hoot. I mean:Yureina said:
Or:
Overall, a good read. I like how the respondent lawyer was able to kinda fend off the justices most of the time and allowed himself to speak and be heard (even interrupting the justices at times). Unlike the California lawyer who kept letting himself get cut off by the judges. The respondent lawyer sounded a lot more confident in his speech.
EDIT: Kinda reminded me a bit of Gyakuten Saiban. In fact I heard "Objection!" more than once in my head. ;p
EDIT: Kinda reminded me a bit of Gyakuten Saiban. In fact I heard "Objection!" more than once in my head. ;p
