Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday

[j0frenzy]

The problem though is that in the American legal system limiting the sale of a product is a violation of a creator's freedom of speech and is a protected right for books, movie, music, etc.

While there aren't any laws enforcing them isn?t there non binding agreements that places will follow age ratings? In my opinion that is just as much a limit on the freedom of speech as a law enforcing it.

Self-regulation is treated differently from government regulation. What game companies and retailers agree to do is entirely up to them. The problem with this case is that the government is setting the standard.

 

[ShadowKirby]

The problem though is that in the American legal system limiting the sale of a product is a violation of a creator's freedom of speech and is a protected right for books, movie, music, etc.

While there aren't any laws enforcing them isn?t there non binding agreements that places will follow age ratings? In my opinion that is just as much a limit on the freedom of speech as a law enforcing it.

Self-regulation is treated differently from government regulation. What game companies and retailers agree to do is entirely up to them. The problem with this case is that the government is setting the standard.

True. If they decide that Mario is obscene, boom, nobody under 18 can get to play Mario, whatever the ESRB says because the gov will put a big red "18+" label on the game for obscenity. Now, obliviously, it's probably not going to happen to Mario, but a bunch of games straddling the line between "T" and "M" will get bumped up to that new "18+" (again, regardless of what the ESRB says). That would KILL the sales of a bunch of games in what is basically one of the biggest market in the world. So guess what, welcome to Australia 2, where blood is sweat , enemies vanish when they die and no touchy subjects can be touched upon. We go back to 20-30 years ago because of this.

 

[ResonanceGames]

I'm not worried at all. In the preliminary hearings, the most conservative justice (Scalia) and one of the most liberal justices (Kagan) were both pretty much making fun of the law. I'd say the chances of this getting ruled as Constitutional are pretty slim. SCOTUS has a very good record on free speech over the last 50 years.

And anyone who doesn't understand why the government saying YOU CAN'T DO THIS BY FORCE OF LAW is very, very different than the MSRB and publishers having a private rating system needs to get their head examined.

 

[Canid117]

Movies had the Hays Code, Comics had the Comics code and now we get to see if our society has overcome its "OMG BAN TEH NEW MEDIA TO PROTECT TEH CHULDREN!" insanity.


Also the name of the case has been changed it is now Brown Vs EMA. Schwarzenegger is no longer the governor of California and so is no longer attached to the case.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

This is going to be the day that will seal our fate. Will we be forever have the stink of children's toys, or shall we be accepted as a medium and as an art. Monday's announcement could be the beginning of the end or the time of a new beginning. Let's all cross our fingers, and see what happens.

 

[frehls]

hue

 

[KirbyKrackle]

hmmm... if it passes, will developers jump ship to Canada? I'd like to work for some of them without having to move down there...

Doubtful. Remember, Canada already HAS the laws that Arnold Schwartzy is trying to pass.

Our tax exemptions for developers are pretty great, though.

Could you please provide a link for information about Canada having a law similar to California's on the books?

I live in BC. Here, at least, it's illegal to sell M games to under-17's. This is roughly the same law that Schwartzy is proposing. I'll look for links, if you really want them.

Yeah, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it, because from what little I've found online, it seems similar to the Ontario law, which, though still pretty stupid, pointless, and moral panicky, has some crucial differences between it and the proposed California law. For instance, the Ontario law relies on the ESRB ratings rather than creating a government agency for determining what qualifies as "mature". In addition, the restrictions are only for AO and M-rated games as determined by the ESRB ratings as opposed to restricting "violent video games" on the hilariously vague basis of depicting "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" and which could easily be applied to most T-rated games. It also essentially classifies video games as film, instead of treating games as pornography, like the California law.

So, as always, the devil's in the details and a roughly similar law can have important differences, which is why I'm curious as to whether the BC law is more like California' or Ontario's. If you have some links on hand, I'd really appreciate them since I'm having trouble finding the wording of the law itself, but if not, don't worry about it. At any rate, if BC really wants to curb violence, they ought to just ban hockey.

 

[Yankeedoodles]

While I can see where this'll have a great impact on the US, I am seeing a potential upside to games loosing this one: Quite a lot of Devs will then leave the states, and with them gone their impact on US economy will be made clear(er), which could maybe lead to a wider acceptance of video games as an actual INDUSTRY all over the world. Also, If the devs move to europe, I may finally get a jab at working in the industry without having to move to a country that does not interest me in the slightest...

Edit: Not saying it'll be good if this was lost, just that there may be something salvagable _in spite of_ loosing.

I don't know the law in your specific country but European states like the UK by and large ALREADY have and enforce the law California is trying to enforce here. And I can't imagine why the developers would move to another country just because US consumers would be limited by what games they can buy. The big thing this law would do if upheld is discourage developers in ALL countries from investing money in games that would risk getting 'Adult' ratings and maybe even 'Mature' ratings because the market will be probably be smaller because retailers would stop stocking such games for fear of litigation.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

At 16, most kids are as mature as they will be until 20. Trust me on this one.

No they really aren't. Just, just no.

Yeah, I'm with you. I am 19. I am a whole lot more mature now than three years ago. The mind is constantly developing until the age of 25. You have to stick that buying restriction somewhere. 17 is fine.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

This could be because it's more hotly debated than the others, or it could be because one of the justices is taking his or her sweet time in writing what could be a landmark decision.

I bet it's the latter. It's still worth being a little worried, since if the decision is in favor of California, that will be pretty much the end for the video game industry. Retailers will stop stocking M Rated games, then T rated games, then anything remotely violent. Then companies will limit what they design for sale to the most tame and arbitrary tasks, until finally they fold when the low sales aren't worth it anymore.

Considering the Supreme Court has been skewing very conservative lately, I find it difficult to believe that they could mount any sort of constitutional argument for censoring media. Remember, "conservative" in regards to the Supreme Court does not mean Republican or Democrat. It means they interpret the Constitution more literally than liberal justices do. If a given right isn't in there, they won't fight for it, but if a law tries to infringe on one of the rights that is there (first amendment), they'll need a few significant precedents and other sections to prove their point. From what I can tell, they probably don't have the latter.

My guess is the liberal justices are probably pro-rights, while the conservatives will be pro first amendment and they'll come back with a unanimous verdict in favor of video games. Whoever is writing the decision is probably prepping a veritable ***** slap to wasteful politicians. This sucker had been shot down in every other court so far. Maybe they're arguing who gets to write it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

We all know that gaming should have all the rights to free speech as any other medium, and let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes that as well.

I'm still a little lost, I guess. How is this about free speech? I can certainly see an argument for self-regulation, or duplication of duties, but free speech?

Forgive me if I misunderstand what this trial is about, but it is about legislation to keep games not suitable for minors out of the hands of minors, yes?

This is something the games industry already understands, and even supports. So... what's so bad about making it law?

I can understand that the games industry already does this, so why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars on something that is already self-regulated, sure. There's a valid argument there.

What I don't understand is what free speech has to do with it. Minors do not have all the rights and responsibilities as full citizens. Even at that, this is a "right" that the games industry already has revoked. I thought that was the primary argument here; that the games industry already does it; are we saying that the games industry already suppresses free speech or what here?

The only other argument I've heard is "it sets a precedent". Yes, it does, that other states can create laws to regulate the sale of inappropriate games to minors. Again, something the games industry already supports.

Or do you mean the conspiracy option, that it sets a precedent to later truly infringe on the freedom of speech? Well, then all people who play grand theft auto will turn to a life of crime, and all people who play call of duty will shoot up their school. All people who ever try a drug once will end up addicted and destitute. You see? We can't give the slippery slope argument merit just when it is useful to us.

Sure, I can see it as an unnecessary law, but I don't see how it infringes upon freedom of speech.

If this law goes into effect: minors will not have access to inappropriate games. Just the same as before.

 

[Speakercone]

Just read the transcript. Interesting to say the least.

Normally I try to stay emotionally detatched from things I can't possibly change, but I'm losing sleep over this.

 

[unoleian]

Maybe I'm simply biased but the decision here is clear and obvious.
If it isn't ruled in favor of EMA, then I will eat my own dirty sock.

I will.

 

[CD-R]

We all know that gaming should have all the rights to free speech as any other medium, and let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes that as well.

I'm still a little lost, I guess. How is this about free speech? I can certainly see an argument for self-regulation, or duplication of duties, but free speech?

Because the constitution states that the government cannot regulate speech. In order to enforce this law the government would have to make decisions on what is or is not considered violent or sexual content. In other words regulating. The law goes against what the constitution says. This is a bad thing if you believe in the rule of law, liberty, and all that stuff.

Forgive me if I misunderstand what this trial is about, but it is about legislation to keep games not suitable for minors out of the hands of minors, yes?

Which in order to do you would have to violate the constitution. Given a choice between protecting the children or upholding the constitution and by extension the values the US was founded on, I choose the constitution.

This is something the games industry already understands, and even supports. So... what's so bad about making it law?

Again constitution, rule of law, censorship bad, etc. etc.

I can understand that the games industry already does this, so why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars on something that is already self-regulated, sure. There's a valid argument there.

We don't. Video game retailers have the highest rate of voluntary age rating enforcements as opposed to other forms of media such as movies, books and music.

What I don't understand is what free speech has to do with it. Minors do not have all the rights and responsibilities as full citizens. Even at that, this is a "right" that the games industry already has revoked.

No they haven't. You don't need to have the ESRB rate your game if you want to sell it. Your free to to not have the ESRB rate your game just like retailers are free to not carry your game because they have a policy of not selling unrated games. Plenty of Indie games aren't rated by the ESRB.

I thought that was the primary argument here; that the games industry already does it; are we saying that the games industry already suppresses free speech or what here?

No.

The only other argument I've heard is "it sets a precedent". Yes, it does, that other states can create laws to regulate the sale of inappropriate games to minors. Again, something the games industry already supports.

Pretty sure most game developers don't support butchering the first amendment to protect the children.

Or do you mean the conspiracy option, that it sets a precedent to later truly infringe on the freedom of speech? Well, then all people who play grand theft auto will turn to a life of crime, and all people who play call of duty will shoot up their school. All people who ever try a drug once will end up addicted and destitute. You see? We can't give the slippery slope argument merit just when it is useful to us.

Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Bu it's an unnecessary risk I don't feel like taking.

Sure, I can see it as an unnecessary law, but I don't see how it infringes upon freedom of speech.

Now you know and knowing is half the battle.

If this law goes into effect: minors will not have access to inappropriate games. Just the same as before.

Wait so there's currently no squeaky voiced 13 year-olds plying Call of Duty or Halo? Color me surprised. But seriously even if this law would end that problem, it's not worth it.

 

[cookyy2k]

Can't wait to see how fox news will report the verdict whichever way it goes.

 

[4173]

We all know that gaming should have all the rights to free speech as any other medium, and let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes that as well.

I'm still a little lost, I guess. How is this about free speech? I can certainly see an argument for self-regulation, or duplication of duties, but free speech?

Forgive me if I misunderstand what this trial is about, but it is about legislation to keep games not suitable for minors out of the hands of minors, yes?

This is something the games industry already understands, and even supports. So... what's so bad about making it law?

It is a free speech issue, by virtue of it being the government telling a group what content is acceptable, instead of private organization(s).

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Since this isn't a issue that would be described as liberal vs. conservative, I'd say we have a pretty good shot of winning. I always say the side that stands for censorship rarely wins in the long run.

 

[cookyy2k]

We all know that gaming should have all the rights to free speech as any other medium, and let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes that as well.

I'm still a little lost, I guess. How is this about free speech? I can certainly see an argument for self-regulation, or duplication of duties, but free speech?

Forgive me if I misunderstand what this trial is about, but it is about legislation to keep games not suitable for minors out of the hands of minors, yes?

This is something the games industry already understands, and even supports. So... what's so bad about making it law?

I can understand that the games industry already does this, so why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars on something that is already self-regulated, sure. There's a valid argument there.

What I don't understand is what free speech has to do with it. Minors do not have all the rights and responsibilities as full citizens. Even at that, this is a "right" that the games industry already has revoked. I thought that was the primary argument here; that the games industry already does it; are we saying that the games industry already suppresses free speech or what here?

The only other argument I've heard is "it sets a precedent". Yes, it does, that other states can create laws to regulate the sale of inappropriate games to minors. Again, something the games industry already supports.

Or do you mean the conspiracy option, that it sets a precedent to later truly infringe on the freedom of speech? Well, then all people who play grand theft auto will turn to a life of crime, and all people who play call of duty will shoot up their school. All people who ever try a drug once will end up addicted and destitute. You see? We can't give the slippery slope argument merit just when it is useful to us.

Sure, I can see it as an unnecessary law, but I don't see how it infringes upon freedom of speech.

If this law goes into effect: minors will not have access to inappropriate games. Just the same as before.

If they enact this, who decides what constitutes inappropriate? States may start deciding certain things are inappropriate for the entire population of the state and so ban it, enought states follow this and oh look no games containing this contend because the publishers will lose money for not being able to sell it in man states. Christian groups and parent's organisations who think just because they don't like a game noone should can protest and actually succeed in getting games they don't like banned. It's just like the family guy argument in south park. You get one game pulled because of inappropriate content and they all can be pulled.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

We all know that gaming should have all the rights to free speech as any other medium, and let's hope that the Supreme Court recognizes that as well.

I'm still a little lost, I guess. How is this about free speech? I can certainly see an argument for self-regulation, or duplication of duties, but free speech?

Forgive me if I misunderstand what this trial is about, but it is about legislation to keep games not suitable for minors out of the hands of minors, yes?

This is something the games industry already understands, and even supports. So... what's so bad about making it law?

I can understand that the games industry already does this, so why do we need to spend taxpayer dollars on something that is already self-regulated, sure. There's a valid argument there.

What I don't understand is what free speech has to do with it. Minors do not have all the rights and responsibilities as full citizens. Even at that, this is a "right" that the games industry already has revoked. I thought that was the primary argument here; that the games industry already does it; are we saying that the games industry already suppresses free speech or what here?

The only other argument I've heard is "it sets a precedent". Yes, it does, that other states can create laws to regulate the sale of inappropriate games to minors. Again, something the games industry already supports.

Or do you mean the conspiracy option, that it sets a precedent to later truly infringe on the freedom of speech? Well, then all people who play grand theft auto will turn to a life of crime, and all people who play call of duty will shoot up their school. All people who ever try a drug once will end up addicted and destitute. You see? We can't give the slippery slope argument merit just when it is useful to us.

Sure, I can see it as an unnecessary law, but I don't see how it infringes upon freedom of speech.

If this law goes into effect: minors will not have access to inappropriate games. Just the same as before.

If this law goes into effect, the great state of California will get to decide what an "inappropriate game" is. This sets a precedent in that it isn't done for any other medium, and, leaving aside the damage it could do to the video game industry, what's to then stop "concerned" legislators from saying "I have a study that says books/comics/movies/rock 'n' roll cause psychological harm to minors, just like video games. Perhaps we should help parents out by making a law that will restrict who has access to these media, just like with video games"? There are reasons both the film and comic book industries have shown such interest in the case.

As for the video game industry itself, the way the law is set up, if SCOTUS decides in California's favor, violent video games will basically be subjected to the same treatment as pornography; Cali. is proposing the Miller test, of all things, and, again, this is precedent setting in that this test has never been used for judging violent content before.

Also the law is really, horribly vague and can easily lead to a chilling effect for the industry since California is basically going to leave it to the developers and sellers of a video game to decide whether or not a game's "deviantly violent", and since the Miller test is being used, they have no way of knowing if every single community out there will agree with them, so they'll start to err on the side of caution. Why sell an M or T-rated video game if someone's going to decide it's offensive and treat you to a lengthy court case with accompanying bad publicity (think how important the "family friendly" image is to Wal-mart), wasted money, and fines if you lose? Why make such a game if no one's going to sell it? (Hell, under the law as it's written, me tossing Luigi into a pit in Super Mario Bros. Wii might count as "deviant").

And, yes, there is precedent for "think-of-the-children" government meddling screwing over a medium through censorship. Comics never really recovered from the bullshit they faced in the first half of the 20th century, which included arguments such as how studies showed that comic books totally caused harm to minors and tactics such as restricting the sale of of comics to minors and fining distributors for selling comics deemed offensive (which, shockingly, caused said vendors to stop selling comics). Sound familiar at all?

EDIT: Also, all that boring "fist amendment means virtually no regulating speech" stuff.

Also, on that note, the other extremely dangerous precedent setter here is that a ruling in favour of California by the SCOTUS would basically mean that any video game falling under the nebulous net of "violent video game" would not have first amendment protection, which would make restrictions and regulations of it a free-for-all.

 

[Chromanin]

At 16, most kids are as mature as they will be until 20. Trust me on this one.

No they really aren't. Just, just no.

Yeah, I'm with you. I am 19. I am a whole lot more mature now than three years ago. The mind is constantly developing until the age of 25. You have to stick that buying restriction somewhere. 17 is fine.

Look, I agree that one is not as mature at 16 as 25, but you better believe that at 16 I knew not to recreate my GTAIII antics in real life.

If this verdict turns out in our favor, it may almost make me proud to be an American. Almost. If it doesn't, I'm gonna' tag the local courthouse in the name of "freedom."