Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Citrus]

But the Court hammered away at the game industry as well, asking attorney Paul M. Smith why exactly it believed 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. Justice Samuel Alit also noted that the medium of videogames was utterly beyond the imaginings of the men who created the First Amendment.

"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."

Um, that section doesn't make it sound like it's going too well. It shows that the Court might not view games as necessarily protected by the First Amendment, which is bad, bad news indeed.

If you read the entire transcript, you'll find that that section isn't nearly as threatening. It's the job of the judges to attack absolutely everything the attorneys argue. When Morazzini was speaking, the judges said everything possible in favour of rejecting the law, and when Smith was speaking, they said everything possible in favour of passing the law (like what you quoted). As a whole, though, it's clear that Morazzini took a far worse beating. They even complimented Smith on his arguments once, which isn't usual for the Supreme Court.

 

[Runsta]

JUSTICE KAGAN: It's a candidate, meaning, yes, a reasonable jury could find that Mortal Combat, which is an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spend considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what she's talk about.

lol

 

[ecoho]

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.

ok first off at least one of them has played mortal combat so we should be good on them knowing their stuff.

OT: Now to my opinion of this guys this is going very good its looking like the comic cases of old this will end bloody but in our favor.

 

[Okysho]

the main character? Enemies maybe, bosses maybe, but a main character?

Yes the main character. Plenty of them as well, but as me and another said, it's japanese games.

PIX OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!

in all seriousness though, I really had no idea... What titles had this in it? I can't believe they get away with that kinda stuff...

 

[BrownGaijin]

And now the Justice will retire to their chambers where they will pontificate the matter while playing Wii.

BAN THE BROTHERS GRIMM FAIRY TALES! BAN BUGS BUNNY!

 

[jaing1138]

I dont know why, but I read that as if it was a game release date......


Schwarzenegger v. EMA, GOTY 2011......

Depending on how this turns out, wouldn't it be hilarious if a studio did make a game based on this court case? I don't know how that would work, but it'd be awesome.

Do it as a dlc for phoenix wright

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Justice Scalia: You might call it the California office of censorship.
How long do you think it would take for such an office to be protseted then destroyed? I mean everyone in America hate the word "Censorship"

 

[fierydemise]

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.

I think this assessment just about covers it. The ruling will be very much like the Stevens ruling (thats the animal cruelty video case), you can't create such a broad set of restrictions however there exists a theoretical set of narrower restrictions which could be allowable. Now if you follow Smith's line of argument the inherent imprecision of language makes even that theoretical set of restrictions impossible but whether or not a more targeted set of allowable restrictions exist is mostly immaterial to the question of the California law.

Also I'd like to point out that the issue of the justices only referring to Postal 2 is mostly immaterial. Yes Postal 2 is an egregious example of the medium however so long as the justices understand that there is a spectrum of games and Postal 2 is at best toward one end of that spectrum then its fine. Postal 2 makes a very convenient example of something that is obviously prohibited that makes it a very useful shorthand but the understanding certainly exists that Postal 2 is not representative of games as a medium.

 

[Cryo84R]

Can we get the postal 2 devs in here so we can beat them for giving CA all that ammo?

 

[Zorg Machine]

Considering the fact that my birthday is in february and that I am an extreme pessimist in this matter, I believe that they will ban all games on the morning of my birthday. Either that, or everything will be fine and wisdom and logic will once again triumph over ignorance an...just joking.

 

[Okysho]

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.

I think this assessment just about covers it. The ruling will be very much like the Stevens ruling (thats the animal cruelty video case), you can't create such a broad set of restrictions however there exists a theoretical set of narrower restrictions which could be allowable. Now if you follow Smith's line of argument the inherent imprecision of language makes even that theoretical set of restrictions impossible but whether or not a more targeted set of allowable restrictions exist is mostly immaterial to the question of the California law.

Also I'd like to point out that the issue of the justices only referring to Postal 2 is mostly immaterial. Yes Postal 2 is an egregious example of the medium however so long as the justices understand that there is a spectrum of games and Postal 2 is at best toward one end of that spectrum then its fine. Postal 2 makes a very convenient example of something that is obviously prohibited that makes it a very useful shorthand but the understanding certainly exists that Postal 2 is not representative of games as a medium.

I second this. I didn't know what postal 2 was until I googled it after reading, but this is the poorest representative of the gaming medium I've ever seen. I thought the argument would be concerning popular FPSs like Call of Duty or Halo, which would suddenly riddle the opposition argument with holes. I think one of the problems might be that something as tasteless as Postal 2 even exists... talk about giving us a bad name (last little bit is my opinion)

That being said, unless California can scrape together any more, I think that we'll be reaching a positive verdict before February...

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Im getting pretty peeved that apparently the only games relevant to this case are Postal 2 and Mortal Kombat. This is like putting movies before the Supreme Court and discussing "Santa's Slay" as the most representative work or putting books on the stand and using the KKK Handbook as the ultimate expression of the industry.

They seem pretty pro-game so far, but its annoying that "burning schoolgirls with gasoline and urinating on them" is apparently the only thing that exists in video games. Id like to see the California side try to find a single game that was wildly successful, featured violence and brutality that wasn't sarcastic or a trope parody and was made in the last 4 years.

Its like judging all of film based on WW2 Nazi propaganda.

 

[Dastardly]

Permalink

So far, rather interesting. And SCOTUS is being very careful to appear objective on the matter, which is reassuring--they're not being reactionary or emotional. I believe that a reasoned, even-headed consideration of the topic will lead them to strike down this law. To me, the discussion seems to be about the following key points:

1) Should states have the right to create laws that keep this "X class" of violence out of the hands of 10-year-olds?

Corollary to 1: Does this "X class" pose a noticeable danger to "minors," as defined by the general class of those 17 and under?

2) Do parents have appropriate information and opportunity available to self-regulate the entertainment of their children?

Corollary to 2: Is such a law actually necessary, or (similar to our own 10th amendment) does it ascribe new powers to the state that ought to be reserved for the parents themselves?

3) Can such a law be constructed as to adequately constrain itself to the particular a) medium and b) heinous content to which it is intended to apply?

Corollary to 3: Can there be special features ascribed to video games such that they warrant this particular treatment, but cannot be retroactively ascribed to previous media?

A lot hinges on the answer to these three questions (which basically constitute a TL;DR for the article, by the by).

 

[F-I-D-O]

well, it seems like it went OK. Some of the best lines I've heard from a court case though.
Yes, Ban Bugs Bunny! He didn't define a generation's entertainment...oh wait...
Robots don't count right? Or my fun will be severely limited. *Prays that Vanquish isn't affected
And do Stormtroopers present human characteristics? I don't think they have eyes to aim with, so are they human?

 

[Ekonk]

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."

It's like reading Cicero for Latin class all over again. Cracking jokes and being a cheeky ************ allround in the name of justice. I love it.

 

[Timbydude]

This law was apparently not thought out very well...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: 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?

MR. MORAZZINI: No, it wouldn't, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: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?

MR. MORAZZINI: Under the act, yes...

 

[spartan1077]

right to keep videogames that include such acts as setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them

Ermmmm...what game is this and how much does it cost

OT: We're winning right?