Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

[Flamma Man]

They should keep it out of reach of them, set them down and tell them that they can't play it.

You know.

Like a parent.

If parents actually were the perfect example they should be we wouldn't be having this whole issue in the first place. Most of the kids get their games through their parents, not by going out and buying the violent game themselves.

One of the reasons the ESRB exists is exactly so it reaches out to parents.

Which a lot of them seem to be suprisingly ignoring.

Also, sorry for coming of as a jerk in the last post, I'm tired and I thought you were blaming the ESRB for not doing their job for some reason.

But, yeah, parents these days...

 

[Snotnarok]

I hate these morons trying to censor what THEY don't see fit. It's enjoyed by millions of people and they want their views pushed on everyone.

 

[Ldude893]

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

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.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

This is what we call a "scapegoat" or "pariah".
It's being used to represent a medium in the same way Adolf Hitler is used to represent...well, anyone we don't like (presently, it's popular for several groups to make serious comparisons of Hitler to President Obama).

 

[MikeFrost]

Altho Postal 2 is a piece of crap with OTT violence, it's still valid in terms of being used as a scapegoat because it represents what can effectively be done with a videogame. I just think they shouldn't use it as a reason to strike other games such as Mortal Kombat for instance.

What's at stake at here is really the vagueness of such a law and the lack of clear definition of what's a really violent videogame and what's not. This is what concerns the industry, the fact that other good and recent games like God of War could fall under this category. If Postal II ended up being the only game being banned, I wouldn't really care about this law.

I kinda agree with their assessment of putting the mature rated games of a higher shelf on the stores tho. That way you're sure that the little kids aren't picking it up without help.

 

[Ossim_Sauce]

I hope they drop Postal 2 later in the case, because then we can focus on real games

that weren't made 5 or 6 years ago

... and don't suck.

 

[mr_rubino]

What happens if an adult buys a mature game for himself and then his kid happens to just grab it around the house and play it?

Why would the parent being leaving a violent videogame around the house where a kid could potentially play it?

They should keep it out of reach of them, set them down and tell them that they can't play it.

You know.

Like a parent.

Yeah, all you'd have to do to keep the little rugrats from ever finding a way of getting it is to hide it in a safe when you're not using it. You know. Like a gu-.. Oh wait...

 

[CatinHat]

"setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them out of the hands of ten-year-olds"

if that is the game I'm thinking off (Postal), then we are fucked. Are they going to also talk about all the video games that are some how linked to school shooting, killings at gaming cafes, and etc. If so... we gamers are fucked.

 

[The Bandit]

MR. SMITH: Well, the events in a video game -- what happens in the plot is a combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. There is a creative aspect coming at it from the other side. It's often referred to as a dialogue between the player and the game. I would submit that both are completely protected by the First Amendment. Just as a person -

JUSTICE SCALIA: The child is speaking to the game?

MR. SMITH: No. The child is helping to make the plot, determine what happens in the events that appear on the screen, just as an actor helps to portray what happens in a play. You are acting out certain elements of the play and you are contributing to the events that occur and adding a creative element of your own. That's what makes them different and in many ways wonderful.

This guy knows his shit. I'm not done, but so far it looks good for vidya.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Off topic: Lol the stonographer misspelled Mortal Kombat.

 

[Kyogissun]

I'm really hoping either The Escapist, Destructoid or maybe even someone on the Blistered Thumbs team will publish some 're-tool' of what's been said, in a shorter and more interesting read.

That isn't to say I cannot understand what's going on, but a LOT of what's being said there is what I'd call 'heavy worded' in the sense that because this is a serious and political situation, that it has to be worded as such.

Until then, I'll be reading little excerpts people post here and other places.

 

[4484448444844484]

Overall, a good read. Things look grim for the California law.

 

[Zeekar]

I disagree with the opinion that this wasn't a fun read. I had a lot of fun reading it -- every second of it, in fact. I actually feel good about the case after having seen Morazzini get his ass grilled by the collective justices. He could barely stand up to any of their scrutinies as I read it. At least twice he couldn't even respond with any quantitative evidence when probed.

Mr. Smith also got hammered but generally he asserted his case with more confidence and consistency. My only worry was that perhaps he didn't put enough emphasis on certain points I'd have liked to have particular emphasis, but I'm happy with his performance.

February is a long time to wait for this, but I don't think we have much to worry about.

 

[Xyphon]

What happens if an adult buys a mature game for himself and then his kid happens to just grab it around the house and play it?

Why would the parent being leaving a violent videogame around the house where a kid could potentially play it?

They should keep it out of reach of them, set them down and tell them that they can't play it.

You know.


Like a parent.

They will argue, find it within a short timeframe and play it.

You know.

Like a child.

Up high, down low, in the car, locked in a safe, they WILL get to it no matter what.

 

[Thorvan]

What happens if an adult buys a mature game for himself and then his kid happens to just grab it around the house and play it?

Why would the parent being leaving a violent videogame around the house where a kid could potentially play it?

They should keep it out of reach of them, set them down and tell them that they can't play it.

You know.


Like a parent.

They will argue, find it within a short timeframe and play it.

You know.

Like a child.

Up high, down low, in the car, locked in a safe, they WILL get to it no matter what.

At which point it becomes the parent's job to stop provoking their squabbling with punishments for something that the parent either did not tell tell the child they would be punished for, or made it a taboo, therefore enticing to a child. They should sit down with their kid, and have a proper talk with them about the issues both have with the game.

You know.

Like a good parent.

 

[Nimzar]

Okay, that was certainly an interesting, even entertaining, read.

The main points that I saw were: (1) Should games be covered by the first amendement; (2) if they are covered should we make an exception to their coverage in cases of "deviant" violence, and (3) if we should make such an exception how do we define "deviant" violence in such a way that developers can continue to make games know full well on which side of the law they would fall.

Since I'm posting on the Escapist my side on the issue is obvious, and I have an obvious bias against the opposing argument. But overall I feel like the Petitioners came out at least a little worse for wear than the Respondents.

Also, I never thought I would actually get some ENJOYMENT out of reading a court transcript. This is bizarre.

 

[Kapol]

Unfortunantly, I think we're screwed. That's just the feeling that I got from reading the transcript though. The first part seemed funny, mainly because the first guy would always respond with his law or that videogames hurt kids. The second part was very serious and slightly depressing for me to be honest, as it seemed like it went badly in my mind.

One more thing I'd like to mention: Why is it that people with no video game playing experience (or I'm assuming so) are the ones making/judging these laws? It seems to be so at least with me. Those people get their ideas on games from videos of the games, not the games themselves, making them no different then movies really to those people. It just makes no sense and makes everything worse I think...

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.

That's basically what I was thinking. They picked 1 game to show, the worst of the worst, and focused on it. It's not really fair.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Guys, Postal 2 doesn?t seem very dissimilar to the kind of oppressive parody and satire Southpark often shoots forth into the world. If Southpark can exist then Postal 2 can exist. The only finicky difference you can get into over them is the media they are is played in and I?m not sure if sufficient evidence has been presented to separate the two mediums in such a way.

I think it?s quite good they have presented the extremes, where can they go to after this if they fail?

 

[PurplePlatypus]

oops duble post.