Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday

[Saltyk]

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.

I think you're pretty close to the truth with this. From what I have seen of the case, it seems that more than a few of the justices were not buying the California argument. One of my favorite lines was a Justice asking whether the law would prohibit violence against Vulcans. So, I'm not too worried here. Though, I would be surprised if it was unanimous.

Also, didn't they strike down the law against crush videos for being too vague recently? Kind of hard to see them siding with California after that.

 

[Thorvan]

We've been waiting far too long for this, and I'm pretty confident, considering all the stuff that's heaped up in our favor throughout the year, that this is, in fact, going to be so awesome!

Fingers crossed!

 

[Tdc2182]

Crap, I completely forgot about this case.

Thank God Arnold had the illegitimate child with that one chick.

This might help us out.

Edit: Also guys, I'm feeling like there is gonna be a Game of Thrones twist here... Everybody is so confident that it's gonna go right.

 

[TK421]

Although I hope we win this one, I don't know if the impact will be very extreme either way. I may be wrong, but I'm just not seeing big changes either way.

 

[cookyy2k]

Crap, I completely forgot about this case.

Thank God Arnold had the illegitimate child with that one chick.

This might help us out.

Edit: Also guys, I'm feeling like there is gonna be a Game of Thrones twist here... Everybody is so confident that it's gonna go right.

If it goes wrong its time to take up stamp collecting or some other hobby because serious gaming is going to be going the way of the dodo and being replaced by interactive learning programs for kiddies.

Although I hope we win this one, I don't know if the impact will be very extreme either way. I may be wrong, but I'm just not seeing big changes either way.

Well if we lose its a massive problem. Most games are produces/sold in america. If their was state wide bans on certain aspects of gaming publishers would not let such games be made since they'd be giving up on large segnments of the population. Also saying certain things are ok and others arn't leads to the problem where every little group in America could claim a game they don't like violates or deserves the ban too. You get people who have no intention of playing the game, no idea what gaming is about and probably just dislike that particular game dictating to the industry what they can/can't do. I sure as hell don't want that.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

You forgot one thing though, the American justice system is broken to the point where we need an entirely new one. I've seen it in action first hand and as an observer. The antagonist always wins.

Agree entirely, except on the antagonist always wins. Not always.

I have a topic going on about how to change this stuff for the better. I really hope somthing even CAN be done to make the legal system better.

*is depressed*.

Honestly, I think that lawyers shouldn't have such a huge role. They should be the ones gathering up evidence etc. but the people they are defending should have more of a say as well. Also, no damn objections, it's fucking ridiculous. Image and reputation should have nothing to do with the case, slander should not be aloud also, because it happens constantly in court rooms. If anything should be objected to, it's that.

We built the system in the traditions of yesteryear, and haven't changed the rules and restrictions with the times. Sure we allow more methods to be counted as evidence, but that isn't enough

 

[Razgrizaces]

I'm 14. I am ashamed at our government even thinking of passing this. I don't even ask to buy games myself, my parents usually buy games that are rated M based that fact that I will not and cannot buy a weapon and go on a shooting spree. Why would that even be plausible? Schwarzenegger's movies are probably much more dangerous to minors than video games.

This is a stupid law. I hope that it doesn't get passed in this case... my fingers are crossed.

 

[-Dragmire-]

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.

yeah, wishful thinking on my part. Even if physical distribution becomes hampered in some way, they'll probably look to digital distribution first anyway.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I think you're pretty close to the truth with this. From what I have seen of the case, it seems that more than a few of the justices were not buying the California argument. One of my favorite lines was a Justice asking whether the law would prohibit violence against Vulcans. So, I'm not too worried here. Though, I would be surprised if it was unanimous.

Also, didn't they strike down the law against crush videos for being too vague recently? Kind of hard to see them siding with California after that.

I didn't know about that animal cruelty thing. Interesting wrinkle on the case. Also, ewww.

 

[Saltyk]

I think you're pretty close to the truth with this. From what I have seen of the case, it seems that more than a few of the justices were not buying the California argument. One of my favorite lines was a Justice asking whether the law would prohibit violence against Vulcans. So, I'm not too worried here. Though, I would be surprised if it was unanimous.

Also, didn't they strike down the law against crush videos for being too vague recently? Kind of hard to see them siding with California after that.

I didn't know about that animal cruelty thing. Interesting wrinkle on the case. Also, ewww.

Yeah, but I liked the reasoning. It was basically saying that the law was so vague that it could be used against education works as well. Or a hunting video. Or someone doing a report on dog fights. So, they weren't defending crush videos, just stating that any law targeting them needs to ensure that it only targets them.

Also, worth noting that there was only one dissenting vote. Alito.

Here's a link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/supreme-court-overturns-a_n_544307.html

 

[Reaper195]

What's disappointing is how much the rest of the world will suffer if gaming gets fucked over, because just about all games end up coming from the States. This is also the problem when you have a country and then a fuck-tonne of states that have their own laws. 'Tis ridiculous.

 

[Saltyk]

What's disappointing is how much the rest of the world will suffer if gaming gets fucked over, because just about all games end up coming from the States. This is also the problem when you have a country and then a fuck-tonne of states that have their own laws. 'Tis ridiculous.

Yeah, that's part of the problem. And if every state has its own rules that will make things more difficult. On top of that, the only way California could enforce its law is by forming an agency or saddling another agency with the work of identifying objectionable content. Then how do they enforce it? So on and so on.

Worse still, if this passes, we might be seeing something in the U.S. similar to what they see in Australia. So, yeah.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

You forgot one thing though, the American justice system is broken to the point where we need an entirely new one. I've seen it in action first hand and as an observer. The antagonist always wins.

This.

While we're on the subject, the entire world is broken too.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

The games industry won't lose a case. Not when we have Phoenix Wright.

 

[Blind0bserver]

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.)

If the man who starred in Hercules in New York manages to cripple this industry than... just... I'm done. Just done. I'm moving to Canada.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

You forgot one thing though, the American justice system is broken to the point where we need an entirely new one. I've seen it in action first hand and as an observer. The antagonist always wins.

This.

While we're on the subject, the entire world is broken too.

Very true sir.

 

[Akexi]

Here's hoping games are recognized as a medium with just as much potential as movies, literature, and music.

 

[Ian Meier]

We'll just have to hope the Supreme Court sees our sides and rule in our favor. If not well we've got work to do come election day.

 

[BabyRaptor]

With Scalia and Thomas on the court, as well as the other conservatives, I simply cannot be hopeful about this. The total butchering of decades of legal precedent that they have accomplished so far is astounding in it's audacity. So much damage has been done that I think all of the decisions they've made should be declared invalid and taken up by a new court. I don't know how the fuck someone would go about doing that, and I definitely doubt anything like it exists.

My thoughts exactly. I can't really see how granting this freedom makes more money for the Republicans' owners, and we know that THAT is all they really care about.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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.

Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech