I'm not too worried. Even if the verdict is against us, we will still treat it as an art because that is how we feel about it.
Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
You can still feel it's an art, but if this verdict is against us, the United States government will be legally able to suppress and censor video games because they don't have the legal protections granted by officially being an art form.deserteagleeye said:
Wait, wasn't this already declared? I'd swear that the Supreme Court already ruled in favour of games being their own art form.
Though to be perfectly honest (and I know a lot of people are going to explain to me why I'm wrong by saying this) I don't really care one way or the other. The only reason why I even hope that it is declared an art is because I know it'd be more beneficial for more people than detrimental for others.
Though to be perfectly honest (and I know a lot of people are going to explain to me why I'm wrong by saying this) I don't really care one way or the other. The only reason why I even hope that it is declared an art is because I know it'd be more beneficial for more people than detrimental for others.
Maybe you ought to read up on Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, the Comics Code Authority, and what the CCA did to eviscerate the comic book industry from the 50s all the way through the 90s, all in the name of "the children!!!!!!".
Make no mistake, this shit is REAL, and if we lose, it's very bad news for the game industry.
I know this sounds like hyperbole but I sincerely believe it. If the court finds for the state then rule of law in this country is finished and completely supplanted by rule of men.
Quoted from the previous article "California is arguing that video games are special for two reasons: First, because the level of violence is "deviant" or "obscene"; and second, because of the "the interactive nature of gaming." That is, the state can censor violent games, even though it can't censor violent books or violent movies, because the level of violence is so deviant as to be obscene, and because the consumer of a videogame is actively engaged with the content, rather than merely consuming it."
If the court agrees that games are "extra deviant" then there is nothing stopping any other content from being declared the same.
I wish there was a way to banish anyone who used the "think of the children" argument. These people are pushing an agenda and appealing to emotion without any kind of logic.
This case should never have made it that far in the first place, there needs to be some kind of consequence for supporting unconstitutional laws.
Quoted from the previous article "California is arguing that video games are special for two reasons: First, because the level of violence is "deviant" or "obscene"; and second, because of the "the interactive nature of gaming." That is, the state can censor violent games, even though it can't censor violent books or violent movies, because the level of violence is so deviant as to be obscene, and because the consumer of a videogame is actively engaged with the content, rather than merely consuming it."
If the court agrees that games are "extra deviant" then there is nothing stopping any other content from being declared the same.
I wish there was a way to banish anyone who used the "think of the children" argument. These people are pushing an agenda and appealing to emotion without any kind of logic.
This case should never have made it that far in the first place, there needs to be some kind of consequence for supporting unconstitutional laws.
I will lawl so hard if that happens with gaming....A prision full of guys just wanting to play some damn CoD or something lolDanDeFool said:
SRS face/ This better not screw us over or else law school will have someone extra studying really REALLY hard to get this reversed.
If you go back and read the transcripts Scalia especially was particularly on our side (seemingly)Jabberwock King said:
No, it was decided that another part of the goverment would give grants to games as an artistic medium.Stammer said:
Remember our goverment is divided into seperate branches that are all designed to balance each other out. The guys who pass the laws (Legislative) are not the guys who actually run the goverment and get to interpet them in practice (Executive), and then you have a seperate branch (Judicial) with the Supreme Court which exists as oversight, it can't actually do anything like pass laws or directly run the goverment, but it can review laws in accordance with the constitution and shoot them down, or overule things done by lower courts. This is an intentionally simplistic version of things... which might be useful to some from the US, or who haven't paid much attention to the goverment and the way it works.
In short what's going on is the State of California (Scwartzneggar is the Governor) passed a law allowing the goverment to regulate games. The right to do that has been challenged, and The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (they don't have to, they get to choose what to review). Right now we're waiting for it to rule on whether it agrees that the law is constitutional or not, due to govermental enforcement of ratings creating a massive free speech issue that goes beyond the intent of the law (it could snowball easily). I won't break that down, but that's what the Supreme Court is up to.
At any rate, while this was ongoing, part of the executive branch of the goverment decided that it thinks games are Art, and decided that it would invest money in the creation of games, much like it does other areas of artistic endeavor.
Now, this could have been done to try and sway The Surpreme Court's opinion (ie other parts of the goverment disagree with California), we don't really know all the motivations behind this desician. Technically The Surpreme Court isn't supposed to consider things like that though.
Generally speaking if the worst happens and The Surpreme Court allows the regulation of video games, in this case it won't nessicarly influance the policies of other parts of the goverment. We might very well see regulated games, alongside art grants being given to indie game developers. There is a good chance they will remain two entirely differant issues. It seems unlikely that a ruling from The Surpeme Court, even if it says "games are not to be granted artistic protection" is going to directly force the end of those grants, though it COULD happen, and down the road when we see a change of administration someone would probably cut that end of things though.
That's what's going on as I understand it.
That said, if The Surpreme Court rules in favor of allowing the goverment to rate games and enforce the ratings, I'm going to be a bit disappointed if nothing happens as a result. Though in the end I suspect there will just be a lot of bellyaching and that will be the end of it, along with the beginning of the end for what remains of our free speech rights.
I'm hoping for the best though, let's see what happens Monday.
Fingers crossed. As one of the few non-jaded, still-believing-in-the-American-legal-system types in my area, I'm hoping that the SCOTUS will make the right decision on this one. Here's to hoping... because I honestly cannot think of a logical reason that the ruling would not be the favor of games' free speech.
Is anyone in the UK (and probably everywhere else in the world just not looked it up) reading this and thinking
"Why not just make it illegal to sell a game to someone under the age rating on it?"
(as I understand it that is not what this law is doing)
If I remember right in America it?s the games industry who actually gives the age ratings there so they should have no reason to complain.
It would be the shops who are punished for breaking it and don't they have some agreement not to sell games to someone under its age rating anyway?
It will not stop free speech because if a parent wants to buy an 18 rated game for their kid then they can.
Side note, I think that should be applied to films, books and music so it is not singling out games. Else what is the point in you even having age ratings in the first place?
"Why not just make it illegal to sell a game to someone under the age rating on it?"
(as I understand it that is not what this law is doing)
If I remember right in America it?s the games industry who actually gives the age ratings there so they should have no reason to complain.
It would be the shops who are punished for breaking it and don't they have some agreement not to sell games to someone under its age rating anyway?
It will not stop free speech because if a parent wants to buy an 18 rated game for their kid then they can.
Side note, I think that should be applied to films, books and music so it is not singling out games. Else what is the point in you even having age ratings in the first place?
I have confidence the old guys on the judge chairs will make the intelligent decision here, especially considering the recent
"Games are art"
decision by the federal government.
"Games are art"
decision by the federal government.
I believe at this point if the Supreme Court rules that Arnold Schwarzenegger is better qualified to judge for the whole what is and is not suitable for the moral development of our children than those childrens' individual parents, I'm going to have to make a quick trip to Washington D.C. to spit on a justice.
(Please don't hurt me, Feds, I'm not serious.)
(Please don't hurt me, Feds, I'm not serious.)
This is what Canada has, and it sucks.FMAylward said:
Actually, this is what the law is ABOUT. If you're 16, you're clearly much, much less mature than a 17-year-old. Just logic you know. /sarcasm.
Yeah, the law is to decide whether it's lawful to ban minors from playing M games.
I thought this law was about stopping minors playing "violent games" with no actually definition of what "violent" was.King Toasty said:
And while I agree that it?s stupid that a 16 year old can?t play a game that is rated 17 a 16 year old should be "mature" enough to simply ask his parents\legal guardians to be there when he buys it, surely they could take a few minuets out of their normal shopping trip for that?. it's how I got GTA (and paid for myself) when I was 12.
At 16, most kids are as mature as they will be until 20. Trust me on this one. You can also have a job at 16 in most places.FMAylward said:
So can you imagine how terrible it is to go down to EB Games, with $70 that you saved up on a job, and not being able to buy Mass Effect because some bureaucrat is too lazy to change a law? It's not good. The government should decide when you're "mature", it should be up to the parents. So I agree with having ratings, so parents know which game is good for their kids, but how they choose the ratings and the laws surrounding them are blindingly restrictive and meaningless.