Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday

[Nouw]

Come join NZ with the legal restrictions America!

 

[0p3rati0n]

If we lose and shit starts going down for video games, I swear I'll move out of the U.S. and into a more excepting country. So fingers crossed so I don't have to spend a small fortune moving and becoming a citizen of a different country and possibly learn a new language.

 

[dalek sec]

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.

I'll admit, I'm still a little worried about how this might end up personaly cause well nothing is certain in life like I can't believe this shit had to be brought forth to the Supreme Court.

But as ResonanceGames said Scalia and Kagan were pretty much ragging on this law throughout the hearings. I'm hoping that that's a good sign that they'll shot this law down and make the state of California pay for the whole damn thing.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: quote

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.

Spoiler: quote

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).

Spoiler: quote

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.

Spoiler: quote

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.

Spoiler: quote

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

Yes, I do watch Extra Credits, I generally enjoy the show, they do a good job. Essentially, however, I am seeing the same old song and dance from all of you.

The California law is proposing to do something that the games industry already does; prohibit the sale of games to minors. To clarify, directly to minors, just like ESRB, parents could still buy it for them. So in that instance, it is still just as useless when you get ignorant parents involved.

Essentially it creates an ESRB with legal teeth. Why is this a bad thing? Not "because of the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". Why is this, in and of itself, a bad thing?

Again, "freedom of speech" seems to be presupposed here. Minors do not have full citizen rights or responsibilities. That is something that seems very lost on minors to begin with, but especially in gaming circles. If this law were to include adults, sure, I could see something to get in a tizzy about, and at that point it would be guaranteed that it would be ruled out as unconstitutional. The constitution is what stops the slippery slope here.

What about the second amendment? I mean, if minors have the first amendment right to whatever speech they want, clearly they have a second amendment right to bear arms that the government shouldn't regulate? Right?

What about the responsibilities that come with rights for minors? Selective service registration? Jury duty? Trials as adults?

My point is this; the rights of citizens are different when applied to minors, so crying "free speech" over this isn't an 'auto-win' button.

If this law passes, I don't think you're going to see the sky falling like everyone on this site believes.

If it doesn't, well, you all can rest easy anyway.

 

[MorganL4]

I may sound pessimistic on this issue, but as I am relatively familiar with politics and have been following the supreme courts decisions closely for almost 10 years now I can confidently say that we will lose this one. I don't like it I think its wrong that we will (knock on wood) but I'm fairly certain of the outcome.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Well, I'm gonna look evil and say I'm pleased the crush videos ruling fell to bits.

Of course they should be illegal and a law should be passed to criminalie those who make them.

But I'm in the UK, and I've seen too many instances recently of laws being passed, or in the process of being passed, where the wording is way too loose, and gives up too many personal freedoms in the name of security.

There's currently one going thru with a completely open clause, which means, if passed,they can go back and just rewrite the laws any way they like without having to pass it by the regulators again. Surely it's not just me that sees that's bad. It's a copyright law, but theoretically, they could write in a new clause stating 'being unemployed is punishable by death' and start shooting the poor and homeless. (extreme example, but it's possible is all, and I can easily see Cameron on a horse with a pack of dogs chasing down the homeless across a field.)

On top of that, Arnie is leading the attack on violent video games? That's like Larry Flynt leading an anti porn rally. Have the people on his side even seen how many games have his name, likeness, and how many have constant, explicit violence?

I'm not gonna list em all, but there has to be at least a dozen video games with him just constantly murdering people. I'm going way back to Predator thru to Termy 3.

I remember now how horrible 'Red Heat' was - was just his upper body moving left to right and you just punched an endless stream of people in the face til you got to the end of the level.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

i REALLY hope that if we "lose" that we won't lose the following games:
Prototype 2
Saints Row 3
Bioshock Infinite
Elder Scrolls 5
Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon
Gears of War 3
Mass Effect 3
Dead Rising 2: Off the Record
GTA 5


aaaand that's all i can currently remember. but other than those, i really don't care about the fate of any other game.

 

[dalek sec]

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.

You and me both man, I'm really hoping here that they see the light of logic, shoot down this stupid frakking law. And for the finale insult they make the state of California pay for the whole damn thing for wasting everyone's time. No wonder that state is broke...

At this point all I can really say is hope the nine wise people on the hill do the right thing and put your faith in the god of your choice.

 

[Thrakkesh]

I think people are putting too much weight in the Justice's sarcastic statements.

Supreme Court Justices are known for being brusque, even venomously sarcastic in their deliberations. Ostenibly, the reason for this is they don't want to beat around the bush. 'Tearing in' to someone's argument, making absurd statements (the 'Vulcan' line), despite being funny, is really just to gauge the response of the lawyers present.

I don't feel personally the responses are adequate--but there's still a lot of room for this to go to south.

 

[Lizmichi]

God please rule in our favor Supreme Court, it's wrong to treat games like it has no valve at all. I can't wait for Monday now. *crosses fingers* PLEASEEEEEEEEE!!

 

[ServebotFrank]

I may sound pessimistic on this issue, but as I am relatively familiar with politics and have been following the supreme courts decisions closely for almost 10 years now I can confidently say that we will lose this one. I don't like it I think its wrong that we will (knock on wood) but I'm fairly certain of the outcome.

I've been following this case closely and I myself am a pessimist. But I've read the transcripts and have been studying this case and have deduced one answer. We will win this. Have you seen the transcripts? The judges don't take California seriously in the slightest. For example, "How about a game about Vulcans being beheaded?" The Judges won't pass this law. It's too vague and they know how it would affect other industries. In all I say only two or three judges are with California.

 

[MovieBob]

The optimistic cynic in me says that the court transcripts indicate that this has been going "our way" for awhile now - even Scalia has been against it, and while that's the expected position for a so-called "Constitutionalist Conservative" he's notoriously "flexibile" in his affection for the free market when it comes to "family values" issues - and that the length of deliberation is more about wording the actual decision VERY carefully. The Supreme Court does NOT like being questioned and/or derrided in the media, and they have to know that deciding against California in this case will be reported by both FoxNews/talk radio on the right AND the busybody/think-of-the-children wing of the left as "The Supreme Court just said it WANTS your children to play horrible violent video games!!!" IF the ruling goes our way, expect a lot of "however reprehensible we may find such things..." language in the actual written decision.

In any case, HOWEVER this goes down I hope gamers who also happen to be (or will one day happen to be) American Voters take this a lesson that - with appologies to that one very amusing South Park episode - THIS IS WHY YOU VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. NOT because this or that candidate agrees with all your positions, or because of what they say on the campaign, or even because of what they can be expected to do with their OWN power while in office... but because Presidents nominate Federal and Supreme Court Judges, and the Federal and Supreme Court is where ALL major decisions like this are ultimately made now.

And a judgeship is a LIFETIME appointment unless you are officially thrown out for breaking the law yourself. Just to put that in perspective: George Bush was president for 8 years. During those 8 years, he put two judges on the Supreme Court and MANY more on the Federal Court; and they will be making legal decisions very-likely on the same lines that made them appeal to Bush in the first place FOR DECADES. Think about that the next time you enter a voting booth.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

You are referring to one of the most basic and obvious aspects of the legal system as "the conspiracy option". Precedent and case law is how it's done- simple as that.

You are also misunderstanding the 'slippery slope' as a logical fallacy. These arguments are fallacious when their premises are not adequately proven or demonstrated. This is definitely the case with your GTA and CoD examples, and definitely not the case with a SCOTUS ruling on a freedom of speech case impacting future freedom of speech cases!

Yes, I do watch Extra Credits, I generally enjoy the show, they do a good job. Essentially, however, I am seeing the same old song and dance from all of you.

The California law is proposing to do something that the games industry already does; prohibit the sale of games to minors. To clarify, directly to minors, just like ESRB, parents could still buy it for them. So in that instance, it is still just as useless when you get ignorant parents involved.

The games industry does not censor video games like you seem to imply. The industry does not prohibit the sale of games to minors, and in fact has no legal authority. They simply do not sell those video games to minors. I know you think this is splitting hairs, but it isn't. There is a world of difference between maintaining an industry standard and censorship.

Essentially it creates an ESRB with legal teeth. Why is this a bad thing? Not "because of the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". Why is this, in and of itself, a bad thing?

If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, it's bad. Now explain why it's bad, but without mentioning "the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". There's that slippery slope thing again.

I'll try anyway. "...it creates an ESRB with legal teeth" is not what this law does at all. It puts ill-defined powers of censorship in the hands of some unknown body for the purpose of God-knows-what. But even if we just went with the idea of a political body mimicking the ESRB, that represents censorship and an affront to freedom of speech and the rule of law in-and-of-itself.

Again, "freedom of speech" seems to be presupposed here.

I'm not 100 per cent sure what you mean by this but that's usually the way it works.

Minors do not have full citizen rights or responsibilities. That is something that seems very lost on minors to begin with, but especially in gaming circles. If this law were to include adults, sure, I could see something to get in a tizzy about, and at that point it would be guaranteed that it would be ruled out as unconstitutional. The constitution is what stops the slippery slope here.

What about the second amendment? I mean, if minors have the first amendment right to whatever speech they want, clearly they have a second amendment right to bear arms that the government shouldn't regulate? Right?

What about the responsibilities that come with rights for minors? Selective service registration? Jury duty? Trials as adults?

My point is this; the rights of citizens are different when applied to minors, so crying "free speech" over this isn't an 'auto-win' button.

Minors don't have the same rights as adults but they do have rights. We don't keep them locked up in cages. I can't kill one if I feel like it. If you don't think minors should have free speech, I guess we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree. But it would not be minors who were prohibited from buying and owning, but distributors who would be legally barred from selling to minors. So this is a much larger free speech issue than just deciding on rights for minors. If they were to expand the law to challenge the rights of minors to free speech, then you'd see me get REALLY upset.

If this law passes, I don't think you're going to see the sky falling like everyone on this site believes.

If it doesn't, well, you all can rest easy anyway.

The sky isn't going to fall, it's going to become increasingly mundane and irrelevant, and we will always wonder just how nice that sky might have been.

These sorts of disagreements never get resolved, though. I guess people who favor censorship just have different values than people who favor freedom of speech.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

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.

You are referring to one of the most basic and obvious aspects of the legal system as "the conspiracy option". Precedent and case law is how it's done- simple as that.

You are also misunderstanding the 'slippery slope' as a logical fallacy. These arguments are fallacious when their premises are not adequately proven or demonstrated. This is definitely the case with your GTA and CoD examples, and definitely not the case with a SCOTUS ruling on a freedom of speech case impacting future freedom of speech cases!

Yes, I do watch Extra Credits, I generally enjoy the show, they do a good job. Essentially, however, I am seeing the same old song and dance from all of you.

The California law is proposing to do something that the games industry already does; prohibit the sale of games to minors. To clarify, directly to minors, just like ESRB, parents could still buy it for them. So in that instance, it is still just as useless when you get ignorant parents involved.

The games industry does not censor video games like you seem to imply. The industry does not prohibit the sale of games to minors, and in fact has no legal authority. They simply do not sell those video games to minors. I know you think this is splitting hairs, but it isn't. There is a world of difference between maintaining an industry standard and censorship.

Essentially it creates an ESRB with legal teeth. Why is this a bad thing? Not "because of the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". Why is this, in and of itself, a bad thing?

If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, it's bad. Now explain why it's bad, but without mentioning "the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". There's that slippery slope thing again.

I'll try anyway. "...it creates an ESRB with legal teeth" is not what this law does at all. It puts ill-defined powers of censorship in the hands of some unknown body for the purpose of God-knows-what. But even if we just went with the idea of a political body mimicking the ESRB, that represents censorship and an affront to freedom of speech and the rule of law in-and-of-itself.

Again, "freedom of speech" seems to be presupposed here.

I'm not 100 per cent sure what you mean by this but that's usually the way it works.

Minors do not have full citizen rights or responsibilities. That is something that seems very lost on minors to begin with, but especially in gaming circles. If this law were to include adults, sure, I could see something to get in a tizzy about, and at that point it would be guaranteed that it would be ruled out as unconstitutional. The constitution is what stops the slippery slope here.

What about the second amendment? I mean, if minors have the first amendment right to whatever speech they want, clearly they have a second amendment right to bear arms that the government shouldn't regulate? Right?

What about the responsibilities that come with rights for minors? Selective service registration? Jury duty? Trials as adults?

My point is this; the rights of citizens are different when applied to minors, so crying "free speech" over this isn't an 'auto-win' button.

Minors don't have the same rights as adults but they do have rights. We don't keep them locked up in cages. I can't kill one if I feel like it. If you don't think minors should have free speech, I guess we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree. But it would not be minors who were prohibited from buying and owning, but distributors who would be legally barred from selling to minors. So this is a much larger free speech issue than just deciding on rights for minors. If they were to expand the law to challenge the rights of minors to free speech, then you'd see me get REALLY upset.

If this law passes, I don't think you're going to see the sky falling like everyone on this site believes.

If it doesn't, well, you all can rest easy anyway.

The sky isn't going to fall, it's going to become increasingly mundane and irrelevant, and we will always wonder just how nice that sky might have been.

These sorts of disagreements never get resolved, though. I guess people who favor censorship just have different values than people who favor freedom of speech.

Your post seems to have lengthened in the time it took me to respond.

My point is that minors have limited rights. I didn't say take away all rights.

Minors don't have a full second amendment right to bear arms, do they? No, there is stronger regulation when it comes to minors.

All "rights" of full citizens are limited for minors, that's my point.

I see the polarizing speech here: since I do not see a problem with this legislation, I favor censorship and do not favor freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but life isn't that absolute.

ESRB does what this law does. You are splitting hairs. Vendors who do not comply with the mandate to not sell M rated games to minors lose backing from ESRB and publishers. That is what this law does, except makes it the standard and enforceable by law.

I'd also like to address this "pull the trigger at my head" comparison. If you put a gun to my head and pull the trigger; I die. For most folks; someone dying for no explicit reason is bad (you didn't stipulate that it was me or 10 other folks, or I am Hitler or something, so I assume you just meant that you straight-up kill me). You putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger is bad because I will die. I will die. That isn't an implication or a presupposition, that's a straight guaranteed chain of events. If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that it will be applied to adults (the first amendment definitely protects adults). If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that Wal-Mart will stop selling games. If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that freedom of speech will be further "infringed" upon. If this law passes, it guarantees that minors will not be able to purchase violent videogames without parental jurisdiction. This is something that the games industry already strives for. So what is bad about it?

I'm just not seeing the case for:
"Minors have a constitutional right to play violent video games."

 

[Hijax]

You know what, Duke Nukem, and all the fans, and fanboys?

This is gonna come up as the single most used argument against games. While this argument is fallacious(because stupid irrelevant sexist movies, music and books exist too), it is going to be very effective in the debate.

I hope you're happy.

 

[trophykiller]

Fingers crossed, everyone. 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.

True, but then again, after the prohibition of the 1920s we were supposed to understand that criminalizing intoxicating substances accomplishes nothing besides funneling massive amounts of taxpayer money to criminal organizations and filling up our prisons with addicts who really haven't done anything else wrong.

Amirite?

You are exactly right, and I wish people would listen to ntelligent arguments like this. Frankly, if we ban games, there will be tons of people copying them in their basements and selling them. But what are they going to do with that? Ban computers?

This applies to all things they try to make illegal, from marijuana to guns.

 

[K_Dub]

Come Monday morning, I'm gonna be refreshing the Escpaist homepage until I see an article telling me the ruling!

 

[Raithnor]

My prediction: Against California, 8-1 or 7-2 with Alito (and possibly Roberts) dissenting

The more liberal Justices and Justice Kennedy will see this as limiting expression, Justice Scalia will see it as limiting expression and capitalism. Justice Thomas is pro-business. Alito will vote for California law because "Think of the Children". It's hard to tell with Roberts, he's generally pro-business but he does have young kids.

There's too much money in the Video Game industry and a law like this could impact that.

 

[Sarcastic_Applause]

Even though im in the UK, i really do hope Video games win this case; it'd be such a turning point for them, i say this as one of the earlier generations of gamer that has seen how much its grown up and i would love nothing more than to see it attain its greatest potential.

 

[4173]

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.

You are referring to one of the most basic and obvious aspects of the legal system as "the conspiracy option". Precedent and case law is how it's done- simple as that.

You are also misunderstanding the 'slippery slope' as a logical fallacy. These arguments are fallacious when their premises are not adequately proven or demonstrated. This is definitely the case with your GTA and CoD examples, and definitely not the case with a SCOTUS ruling on a freedom of speech case impacting future freedom of speech cases!

Yes, I do watch Extra Credits, I generally enjoy the show, they do a good job. Essentially, however, I am seeing the same old song and dance from all of you.

The California law is proposing to do something that the games industry already does; prohibit the sale of games to minors. To clarify, directly to minors, just like ESRB, parents could still buy it for them. So in that instance, it is still just as useless when you get ignorant parents involved.

The games industry does not censor video games like you seem to imply. The industry does not prohibit the sale of games to minors, and in fact has no legal authority. They simply do not sell those video games to minors. I know you think this is splitting hairs, but it isn't. There is a world of difference between maintaining an industry standard and censorship.

Essentially it creates an ESRB with legal teeth. Why is this a bad thing? Not "because of the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". Why is this, in and of itself, a bad thing?

If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, it's bad. Now explain why it's bad, but without mentioning "the implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes". There's that slippery slope thing again.

I'll try anyway. "...it creates an ESRB with legal teeth" is not what this law does at all. It puts ill-defined powers of censorship in the hands of some unknown body for the purpose of God-knows-what. But even if we just went with the idea of a political body mimicking the ESRB, that represents censorship and an affront to freedom of speech and the rule of law in-and-of-itself.

Again, "freedom of speech" seems to be presupposed here.

I'm not 100 per cent sure what you mean by this but that's usually the way it works.

Minors do not have full citizen rights or responsibilities. That is something that seems very lost on minors to begin with, but especially in gaming circles. If this law were to include adults, sure, I could see something to get in a tizzy about, and at that point it would be guaranteed that it would be ruled out as unconstitutional. The constitution is what stops the slippery slope here.

What about the second amendment? I mean, if minors have the first amendment right to whatever speech they want, clearly they have a second amendment right to bear arms that the government shouldn't regulate? Right?

What about the responsibilities that come with rights for minors? Selective service registration? Jury duty? Trials as adults?

My point is this; the rights of citizens are different when applied to minors, so crying "free speech" over this isn't an 'auto-win' button.

Minors don't have the same rights as adults but they do have rights. We don't keep them locked up in cages. I can't kill one if I feel like it. If you don't think minors should have free speech, I guess we'll just have to agree to strongly disagree. But it would not be minors who were prohibited from buying and owning, but distributors who would be legally barred from selling to minors. So this is a much larger free speech issue than just deciding on rights for minors. If they were to expand the law to challenge the rights of minors to free speech, then you'd see me get REALLY upset.

If this law passes, I don't think you're going to see the sky falling like everyone on this site believes.

If it doesn't, well, you all can rest easy anyway.

The sky isn't going to fall, it's going to become increasingly mundane and irrelevant, and we will always wonder just how nice that sky might have been.

These sorts of disagreements never get resolved, though. I guess people who favor censorship just have different values than people who favor freedom of speech.

Your post seems to have lengthened in the time it took me to respond.

My point is that minors have limited rights. I didn't say take away all rights.

Minors don't have a full second amendment right to bear arms, do they? No, there is stronger regulation when it comes to minors.

All "rights" of full citizens are limited for minors, that's my point.

I see the polarizing speech here: since I do not see a problem with this legislation, I favor censorship and do not favor freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but life isn't that absolute.

ESRB does what this law does. You are splitting hairs. Vendors who do not comply with the mandate to not sell M rated games to minors lose backing from ESRB and publishers. That is what this law does, except makes it the standard and enforceable by law.

I'd also like to address this "pull the trigger at my head" comparison. If you put a gun to my head and pull the trigger; I die. For most folks; someone dying for no explicit reason is bad (you didn't stipulate that it was me or 10 other folks, or I am Hitler or something, so I assume you just meant that you straight-up kill me). You putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger is bad because I will die. I will die. That isn't an implication or a presupposition, that's a straight guaranteed chain of events. If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that it will be applied to adults (the first amendment definitely protects adults). If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that Wal-Mart will stop selling games. If this law passes, it doesn't guarantee that freedom of speech will be further "infringed" upon. If this law passes, it guarantees that minors will not be able to purchase violent videogames without parental jurisdiction. This is something that the games industry already strives for. So what is bad about it?

I'm just not seeing the case for:
"Minors have a constitutional right to play violent video games."

It isn't about the minors' rights. It is "The government doesn't have the right to decide what is a "deviant" or "obscene" game."

The largest problem is the government itself doing the rating.