Supreme Court Expected to Give Gaming Verdict Monday

[Ickabod]

I'm scared. A bunch of people that didn't grow up in the time of games making a decision on their fate. How do you rule if you don't understand the content? I have faith that these individuals are as smart as we are led to believe, but fear that they just don't get it.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

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.

Uh, I don't think any of us argued about the rights of minors for buying video games. Where are you getting this from? At a quick glance, we were almost unanimously discussing the first amendment rights preventing the regulation of free speech/expression without a damn good reason. And not that it's going to lead to a first amendment issue, not as an "implication, supposition, and slippery slope", but that it is a first amendment issue, right now, as it's being debated. Read a transcript of the original presentation in court, read the original law. It should be pretty obvious.

And why do you think it's a problem to discuss the implications of the case anyway? Again, if you actually read the transcript you'll notice that the hypothetical results of passing this law came up a lot. Problematic implications of a law as written is one of the reason that it's often declared unconstitutional. I believe earlier someone mentioned the "crush video" case, and that's pretty much what happened. While the law was well intentioned, the implications of how broadly and badly and vaguely it was written meant that it couldn't be allowed to stand. So yeah, I think if SCOTUS considers discussing "implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes" to be fair game, then it's fair game.

And we're presupposing the issue being "freedom of speech" because the issue is freedom of speech. You seem to be the only one confusing "freedom of speech" with "rights of minors".

EDIT: Fun fact, the result of being shot in the head is that you're shot in the head. That you will die is an implication. It's not even a guarantee, as people have survived gunshot wounds to the head. However, even though it's just an implication, and not guaranteed, most people still probably don't want to risk it, go figure. Now in this case, while one result will be that it will be illegal to sell violent video games to minors, the other result will be that the state will be the one deciding what counts as "violent video games" and the state, rather than a voluntary, private organization, will be doing the now-mandatory regulating. Hope that clears things up for you!

 

[CD-R]

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.

No the games industry doesn't do this. The only ones who actually prohibit sales of games to minors are retailers. Specifically retailers that have company policies that prohibit their employees from selling games to minors. They do this because of consumer demand. Consumers demanded they not sell M rated games to minors so retailers voluntarily complied. There's nothing stopping you from opening a video game store and selling M rated and unrated games to anyone you want. Just like there isn't anything stopping you from opening a record store that sells music that hasn't been classified by the RIAA.

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?

Because this violates the first Amendment of the constitution. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." By deciding what is or is not mature content, and leveling penalties based on those decisions the government is abridging the freedom of speech. I don't think I really need to explain why violating the Constitution is bad.

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.

This has nothing to do with the rights of minors. The fact that they want to keep violent content out of the hands of minors is not the issue. The issue is that they want to do that by regulating speech, by deciding what is or is not mature content. Even if their decision is just agreeing with the ESRB it's still a decision and it's still regulation. It's not the ends that is the problem it's the means.

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

Maybe, maybe not but it's still not worth risking.

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

Let's hope so.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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

Yea, sorry about that. Guess I figured I was the only one up at that hour.

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.

Not all rights. That's my point. I can acknowledge that minors don't have all the rights adults do, I'm just trying to point out this isn't justification in-and-of-itself for taking away a specific right they may have at this time.

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.

In this case, it is that absolute. If I understand correctly, you are explicitly and unashamedly advocating censorship of the video game industry. I'm sorry if you took offense, but I don't know what you want me to call it.

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.

Again, that is not what this law does. That may be something you would like to see, but it has nothing to do with this law. This law has nothing to do with any existing rating system, either by the ESRB or any other industry standard. We can talk about this law, or we can talk about some alternative where the ESRB rating receives "legal teeth", as you put it. But let's at least agree on what the proposed law does before we argue specifics.

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.

What is guaranteed is that a bad ruling will create a negative incentive against certain types of games and become part of the established case law concerning artistic and entertainment industries and freedom of expression. Guaranteed, 100% certain chain of events. True, that doesn't necessarily mean future defilement of freedom of speech. It only means the almost guaranteed future attacks on freedom of speech will almost certainly be more sweeping and more likely to succeed, either in whole or in part. Just like a bullet to the head doesn't necessarily result in death or serious injury. It's not guaranteed.

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."

You are changing the entire nature of the proposed legislation by rewording it as an attack on minors' rights. Unless you're proposing we make it illegal for minors to buy, obtain, and own certain video games, this is much more a freedom of expression case that doesn't really touch minor's rights all that much. And even if you were, that is not what this law proposes to do.

It seems like you have some completely different conception of what this law does that somehow involves the ESRB and criminalizing underage access to violent content.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

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.

Uh, I don't think any of us argued about the rights of minors for buying video games. Where are you getting this from? At a quick glance, we were almost unanimously discussing the first amendment rights preventing the regulation of free speech/expression without a damn good reason. And not that it's going to lead to a first amendment issue, not as an "implication, supposition, and slippery slope", but that it is a first amendment issue, right now, as it's being debated. Read a transcript of the original presentation in court, read the original law. It should be pretty obvious.

And why do you think it's a problem to discuss the implications of the case anyway? Again, if you actually read the transcript you'll notice that the hypothetical results of passing this law came up a lot. Problematic implications of a law as written is one of the reason that it's often declared unconstitutional. I believe earlier someone mentioned the "crush video" case, and that's pretty much what happened. While the law was well intentioned, the implications of how broadly and badly and vaguely it was written meant that it couldn't be allowed to stand. So yeah, I think if SCOTUS considers discussing "implications, and suppositions, and slippery slopes" to be fair game, then it's fair game.

And we're presupposing the issue being "freedom of speech" because the issue is freedom of speech. You seem to be the only one confusing "freedom of speech" with "rights of minors".

EDIT: Fun fact, the result of being shot in the head is that you're shot in the head. That you will die is an implication. It's not even a guarantee, as people have survived gunshot wounds to the head. However, even though it's just an implication, and not guaranteed, most people still probably don't want to risk it, go figure. Now in this case, while one result will be that it will be illegal to sell violent video games to minors, the other result will be that the state will be the one deciding what counts as "violent video games" and the state, rather than a voluntary, private organization, will be doing the now-mandatory regulating. Hope that clears things up for you!

My point is that the rules change when you're talking about minors. With this legislation, game developers can still make violent games and sell them to adults.

Am I to understand that your position is: "developers and retailers have a constitutional right to sell violent videogames to minors."?

If so, this isn't reflected in the attitude of the industry. Publishers and games media, like the escapist, have worked very hard to make clear the stance that they do not support the sale of violent games to minors. To now claim and defend a constitutional right to do so seems to undermine that.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You're trying to keep our feelings off the street!
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
.....!.....!.....!.....!
You gotta stem the evil tide!
And keep it all on the inside!
Mary you're nearly a treat
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry!

-Roger Waters, Animals, Pink Floyd
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCM-dDQSM8g[/link]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-James Madison, The First Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution

 

[Hamish Durie]

*crosses fingers*

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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?

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.

if anything it limits the audiences right to hear it, rather thasn the guy saying, the guy still gets to say it, just not to little kiddies. Fine by me. Your legal system is screwy.

You are so right about our legal system being screwy. You have no idea. But in this case, we would consider "limits the audiences right to hear it" an insufferable infringement on our right to freedom of speech. Even the little kiddies. I can't speak for the entire nation, but I for one will not have it.

EDIT: I should add, that our ideas about freedom of speech might make more sense when you learn how we handle these issues in practice, and what implications might arise from breaking that practice.

 

[The Lugz]

games are games, there are good and bad it's like the human centipede got banned in the uk even though it was an 'artwork' of film by definition it was still icky.
yes, technical term.

i think some games should be banned frankly, but for the most part the rest are harmless
especially puzzle games, sports games, learning games, racing games
they teach coordination concentration and logic

even rts games teach you how to manage resources and that is a useful life skill.

the only games i'd go out of my way to ban are 'killing trainer / simulators' that pride themselves on mindless death and have realistic gore and pride themselves on having realistic bullet dropping physics and intestines that drop half digested food on your feet when you slice someone in two.
and EVEN then, only for under 18's
frankly if ur an adult and u have the rrrraaaaaaage in you i'd rather you take it out in a game than my home town, thanks.

and that's most likely the ruling the courts will give because they aren't an unintelligent iniquitous bunch of morons that the general population believe them to be

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

My point is that the rules change when you're talking about minors. With this legislation, game developers can still make violent games and sell them to adults.

The First Amendment does not change except through judicial interpretation. It is what it is.

Am I to understand that your position is: "developers and retailers have a constitutional right to sell violent videogames to minors."?

That's quite a leap from "video games have First Amendment protection from government regulation". However, you might interpret that as a consequence of the First Amendment. By the way, this is close to an inverse of your previous 'minors' rights' routine. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it. Twist the issue any way you like, this is about freedom of speech and nothing else. You're the only one talking about minors' rights and a right to sell to minors.

If so, this isn't reflected in the attitude of the industry. Publishers and games media, like the escapist, have worked very hard to make clear the stance that they do not support the sale of violent games to minors.

The attitude of the industry is that free speech is essential to the growth of the industry and a free society in general. I'll say again: the video game industry does not practice censorship in any form. You say there's no appreciable difference between censorship and industry standards, but I don't think anyone but you will find that convincing.

To now claim and defend a constitutional right to do so seems to undermine that.

No it doesn't. Most adults and even children understand the difference between social responsibility and legal compulsion. I don't see how you are not understanding the effect of the First Amendment or how you could fail to distinguish censorship from voluntary standards of decency practiced by retailers.

 

[neolithic]

Rooster hit it before I could.

I have the RIGHT to own a gun. I CHOOSE not to.
Developers/Retailers have the RIGHT to make and sell violent games to minors, they CHOOSE not to.

Rooster nailed it with "responsibility" vs. "legal compulsion"

 

[Nuke_em_05]

My point is that the rules change when you're talking about minors. With this legislation, game developers can still make violent games and sell them to adults.

The First Amendment does not change except through judicial interpretation. It is what it is.

Am I to understand that your position is: "developers and retailers have a constitutional right to sell violent videogames to minors."?

That's quite a leap from "video games have First Amendment protection from government regulation". However, you might interpret that as a consequence of the First Amendment. By the way, this is close to an inverse of your previous 'minors' rights' routine. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it. Twist the issue any way you like, this is about freedom of speech and nothing else. You're the only one talking about minors' rights and a right to sell to minors.

If so, this isn't reflected in the attitude of the industry. Publishers and games media, like the escapist, have worked very hard to make clear the stance that they do not support the sale of violent games to minors.

The attitude of the industry is that free speech is essential to the growth of the industry and a free society in general. I'll say again: the video game industry does not practice censorship in any form. You say there's no appreciable difference between censorship and industry standards, but I don't think anyone but you will find that convincing.

To now claim and defend a constitutional right to do so seems to undermine that.

No it doesn't. Most adults and even children understand the difference between social responsibility and legal compulsion. I don't see how you are not understanding the effect of the First Amendment or how you could fail to distinguish censorship from voluntary standards of decency practiced by retailers.

So, why isn't "freedom of speech" applied to sexual content? Media with too strong of sexual content is government regulated against sale to minors. The point is that freedom of speech is not 100% comprehensive.

If there is already a precedent for excessive sexual content in media (to minors), why not excessive violent content in media (to minors)?

 

[KirbyKrackle]

My point is that the rules change when you're talking about minors. With this legislation, game developers can still make violent games and sell them to adults.

The First Amendment does not change except through judicial interpretation. It is what it is.

Am I to understand that your position is: "developers and retailers have a constitutional right to sell violent videogames to minors."?

That's quite a leap from "video games have First Amendment protection from government regulation". However, you might interpret that as a consequence of the First Amendment. By the way, this is close to an inverse of your previous 'minors' rights' routine. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it. Twist the issue any way you like, this is about freedom of speech and nothing else. You're the only one talking about minors' rights and a right to sell to minors.

If so, this isn't reflected in the attitude of the industry. Publishers and games media, like the escapist, have worked very hard to make clear the stance that they do not support the sale of violent games to minors.

The attitude of the industry is that free speech is essential to the growth of the industry and a free society in general. I'll say again: the video game industry does not practice censorship in any form. You say there's no appreciable difference between censorship and industry standards, but I don't think anyone but you will find that convincing.

To now claim and defend a constitutional right to do so seems to undermine that.

No it doesn't. Most adults and even children understand the difference between social responsibility and legal compulsion. I don't see how you are not understanding the effect of the First Amendment or how you could fail to distinguish censorship from voluntary standards of decency practiced by retailers.

So, why isn't "freedom of speech" applied to sexual content? Media with too strong of sexual content is government regulated against sale to minors. The point is that freedom of speech is not 100% comprehensive.

If there is already a precedent for excessive sexual content in media (to minors), why not excessive violent content in media (to minors)?

Oh hey, I see you finally figured out what California's position is, as opposed to some made up nonsense about making the ESRB law or restricting the rights of minors. Congrats!

Here, you can read for yourself the arguments against that argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Although if you're feeling too lazy, the long and the short of it is a) there's no precedent, b) the law as written is too restrictive and c) there's no compelling justification for making any such law in the first place.

Hope that helps!

Edit: Oh, but I see you're doing the same thing again that you were doing earlier by pretending that restricting some rights for minors means it's a-ok to impose any ol' restrictions. Just to avoid you repeating the same mistake again, "The point is that freedom of speech is not 100% comprehensive" isn't a go ahead to restrict free speech rights willy-nilly because something offends your precious sensibilities. You have to justify why that restriction is necessary, which you haven't done (and, as far as I'm concerned, neither has California).

 

[Nuke_em_05]

My point is that the rules change when you're talking about minors. With this legislation, game developers can still make violent games and sell them to adults.

The First Amendment does not change except through judicial interpretation. It is what it is.

Am I to understand that your position is: "developers and retailers have a constitutional right to sell violent videogames to minors."?

That's quite a leap from "video games have First Amendment protection from government regulation". However, you might interpret that as a consequence of the First Amendment. By the way, this is close to an inverse of your previous 'minors' rights' routine. It doesn't matter how many times you restate it. Twist the issue any way you like, this is about freedom of speech and nothing else. You're the only one talking about minors' rights and a right to sell to minors.

If so, this isn't reflected in the attitude of the industry. Publishers and games media, like the escapist, have worked very hard to make clear the stance that they do not support the sale of violent games to minors.

The attitude of the industry is that free speech is essential to the growth of the industry and a free society in general. I'll say again: the video game industry does not practice censorship in any form. You say there's no appreciable difference between censorship and industry standards, but I don't think anyone but you will find that convincing.

To now claim and defend a constitutional right to do so seems to undermine that.

No it doesn't. Most adults and even children understand the difference between social responsibility and legal compulsion. I don't see how you are not understanding the effect of the First Amendment or how you could fail to distinguish censorship from voluntary standards of decency practiced by retailers.

So, why isn't "freedom of speech" applied to sexual content? Media with too strong of sexual content is government regulated against sale to minors. The point is that freedom of speech is not 100% comprehensive.

If there is already a precedent for excessive sexual content in media (to minors), why not excessive violent content in media (to minors)?

Oh hey, I see you finally figured out what California's position is, as opposed to some made up nonsense about making the ESRB law or restricting the rights of minors. Congrats!

Here, you can read for yourself the arguments against that argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Although if you're feeling too lazy, the long and the short of it is a) there's no precedent, b) the law as written is too restrictive and c) there's no compelling justification for making any such law in the first place.

Hope that helps!

Edit: Oh, but I see you're doing the same thing again that you were doing earlier by pretending that restricting some rights for minors means it's a-ok to impose any ol' restrictions. Just to avoid you repeating the same mistake again, "The point is that freedom of speech is not 100% comprehensive" isn't a go ahead to restrict free speech rights willy-nilly because something offends your precious sensibilities. You have to justify why that restriction is necessary, which you haven't done (and, as far as I'm concerned, neither has California).

I was originally addressing most of the arguments I have seen on this site. Including the previously referenced extra credits episode: which make several references to "minor's rights", and slippery slopes from those rights, and comparisons to the ESRB. This demonstrates to me that most folks opposed to this don't understand it either.

Again, I'm seeing a lot of misguided rants about "freedom of speech". The reason this has come so far us because "freedom of speech" isn't a simple "win" button. The justices are pointing out that it is too specific to gaming, and not specific enough on the definition of violence. It sounds to me that they are saying that a law like this could be passed if it included all types of media and was more specific about violence; and it wouldn't be a problem for freedom of speech.

Argue that it is too exclusive in application or too vague in definition, but not that it is all about "freedom of speech".

This law is like the proto-pornography litigation; "regulate sexual content in media!" "what do you mean by 'sexual content'? Kissing, nudity, implications of sex, focus on the act itself, depiction of the act itself?" eventually it was narrowed down to... for simplicity's sake; "direct depictions of genital contact in no other context than for the sake of the depiction". That's not a perfect recreation, but the point is it wasn't about "freedom of speech" being a trump button, it was about how specific you had to be in it. They had to narrow it down, but "freedom of speech" isn't the end-all answer.

So the problem with this law is not "freedom of speech, we win!" This law might not make it, but that's not the end. They have to go back and come up with a law that is specific enough: "do you mean fist fights, blood, implication of killing, depiction of killing in-context, depiction of killing for the sake of killing, gore for the sake of gore?"

Look, I understand that the proposed law is too vague. The problem I see is that many of the opponents, on this site and others, don't understand that and throw around "freedom of speech" like it is a miracle shield. Like this is the "ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny"; if "we win" it is forever, and if "we lose" gaming will die.

As with any issue, people need to calm down and actually know what they are panicking about instead of turning "freedom of speech" into a buzz phrase. Some law like this will eventually pass and it will not be as devastating as everyone thinks.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

I was originally addressing most of the arguments I have seen on this site. Including the previously referenced extra credits episode: which make several references to "minor's rights", and slippery slopes from those rights, and comparisons to the ESRB. This demonstrates to me that most folks opposed to this don't understand it either.

Again, I'm seeing a lot of misguided rants about "freedom of speech". The reason this has come so far us because "freedom of speech" isn't a simple "win" button. The justices are pointing out that it is too specific to gaming, and not specific enough on the definition of violence. It sounds to me that they are saying that a law like this could be passed if it included all types of media and was more specific about violence; and it wouldn't be a problem for freedom of speech.

Argue that it is too exclusive in application or too vague in definition, but not that it is all about "freedom of speech".

This law is like the proto-pornography litigation; "regulate sexual content in media!" "what do you mean by 'sexual content'? Kissing, nudity, implications of sex, focus on the act itself, depiction of the act itself?" eventually it was narrowed down to... for simplicity's sake; "direct depictions of genital contact in no other context than for the sake of the depiction". That's not a perfect recreation, but the point is it wasn't about "freedom of speech" being a trump button, it was about how specific you had to be in it. They had to narrow it down, but "freedom of speech" isn't the end-all answer.

So the problem with this law is not "freedom of speech, we win!" This law might not make it, but that's not the end. They have to go back and come up with a law that is specific enough: "do you mean fist fights, blood, implication of killing, depiction of killing in-context, depiction of killing for the sake of killing, gore for the sake of gore?"

Look, I understand that the proposed law is too vague. The problem I see is that many of the opponents, on this site and others, don't understand that and throw around "freedom of speech" like it is a miracle shield. Like this is the "ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny"; if "we win" it is forever, and if "we lose" gaming will die.

As with any issue, people need to calm down and actually know what they are panicking about instead of turning "freedom of speech" into a buzz phrase. Some law like this will eventually pass and it will not be as devastating as everyone thinks.

"It sounds to me that they are saying that a law like this could be passed if it included all types of media " That's what you took away from the judge's comments? Unbelievable.

Also, this? "Argue that it is too exclusive in application or too vague in definition, but not that it is all about "freedom of speech"." Uh, has it occurred to you that the basis of the problems of its vagueness have to do with freedom of speech? No? Oh, okay.

And has it occurred to you that the fundamental issue underlying whether this law or any like being found unconstitutional has to do with the first amendment? No, I guess it hasn't.

Also, given how you interpreted that one judge's questions/comments, I'm really curious now as to what you think the actual defense being made by the EMA actually is, if it isn't that the law is unconstitutional on the basis of the first amendment. Please, do tell.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I was originally addressing most of the arguments I have seen on this site. Including the previously referenced extra credits episode: which make several references to "minor's rights", and slippery slopes from those rights, and comparisons to the ESRB. This demonstrates to me that most folks opposed to this don't understand it either.

Again, I'm seeing a lot of misguided rants about "freedom of speech". The reason this has come so far us because "freedom of speech" isn't a simple "win" button. The justices are pointing out that it is too specific to gaming, and not specific enough on the definition of violence. It sounds to me that they are saying that a law like this could be passed if it included all types of media and was more specific about violence; and it wouldn't be a problem for freedom of speech.

Argue that it is too exclusive in application or too vague in definition, but not that it is all about "freedom of speech".

This law is like the proto-pornography litigation; "regulate sexual content in media!" "what do you mean by 'sexual content'? Kissing, nudity, implications of sex, focus on the act itself, depiction of the act itself?" eventually it was narrowed down to... for simplicity's sake; "direct depictions of genital contact in no other context than for the sake of the depiction". That's not a perfect recreation, but the point is it wasn't about "freedom of speech" being a trump button, it was about how specific you had to be in it. They had to narrow it down, but "freedom of speech" isn't the end-all answer.

So the problem with this law is not "freedom of speech, we win!" This law might not make it, but that's not the end. They have to go back and come up with a law that is specific enough: "do you mean fist fights, blood, implication of killing, depiction of killing in-context, depiction of killing for the sake of killing, gore for the sake of gore?"

Look, I understand that the proposed law is too vague. The problem I see is that many of the opponents, on this site and others, don't understand that and throw around "freedom of speech" like it is a miracle shield. Like this is the "ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny"; if "we win" it is forever, and if "we lose" gaming will die.

As with any issue, people need to calm down and actually know what they are panicking about instead of turning "freedom of speech" into a buzz phrase. Some law like this will eventually pass and it will not be as devastating as everyone thinks.

"It sounds to me that they are saying that a law like this could be passed if it included all types of media " That's what you took away from the judge's comments? Unbelievable.

Also, this? "Argue that it is too exclusive in application or too vague in definition, but not that it is all about "freedom of speech"." Uh, has it occurred to you that the basis of the problems of its vagueness have to do with freedom of speech? No? Oh, okay.

And has it occurred to you that the fundamental issue underlying whether this law or any like being found unconstitutional has to do with the first amendment? No, I guess it hasn't.

Also, given how you interpreted that one judge's questions/comments, I'm really curious now as to what you think the actual defense being made by the EMA actually is, if it isn't that the law is unconstitutional on the basis of the first amendment. Please, do tell.

My point is it isn't a blanket "freedom of speech" trump issue: otherwise the justices wouldn't be asking these questions, it wouldn't have come this far. The point is the application of freedom of speech. The questions the judges are asking have "right" answers that this law doesn't answer. The next proposed law like this could.

It happened to sexual content, it can happen to violence.

My point, as I have said from the onset, is that freedom of speech is not 100% absolute.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

My point is it isn't a blanket "freedom of speech" trump issue: otherwise the justices wouldn't be asking these questions, it wouldn't have come this far.

This law is being challenged on the basis that it violates the First Amendment. If it is shot down, it will be because it oversteps the government's authority to prohibit freedom of speech. We keep bringing it up because there is nothing else to bring up. It's pretty fallacious to claim legitimacy for this law on the basis that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear it. That doesn't mean it's not garbage. It's always been garbage. They usually don't even agree to take this kind of case. My theory from the start has been that the Justices only agreed to hear this case so they could quash this kind of legislation utterly and totally, once and for all.

The point is the application of freedom of speech. The questions the judges are asking have "right" answers that this law doesn't answer. The next proposed law like this could.

The justices' questions should not be assumed to imply legitimacy. Those questions probably do not have "right" answers and that is probably why they are being asked in this way. You are interpreting the Justices in a way that is more convenient than it is accurate by taking their searching questions at face value rather than understanding their intention.

It happened to sexual content, it can happen to violence.

My point, as I have said from the onset, is that freedom of speech is not 100% absolute.

Your point from the onset has been that this case is about anything but freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is outside the scope of the First Amendment. If you are attempting to get violent content retroactively ruled outside First Amendment protection, you have a long, uphill battle before you. Judges have gone to great lengths to discourage exactly what you are trying to do, which is use existing obscenity legislation as carte blanche to eradicate First Amendment protections without justification.

Just because you can name one thing that is not protected by the First Amendment does not mean it is toothless.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

My point is it isn't a blanket "freedom of speech" trump issue: otherwise the justices wouldn't be asking these questions, it wouldn't have come this far.

This law is being challenged on the basis that it violates the First Amendment. If it is shot down, it will be because it oversteps the government's authority to prohibit freedom of speech. We keep bringing it up because there is nothing else to bring up. It's pretty fallacious to claim legitimacy for this law on the basis that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear it. That doesn't mean it's not garbage. It's always been garbage. They usually don't even agree to take this kind of case. My theory from the start has been that the Justices only agreed to hear this case so they could quash this kind of legislation utterly and totally, once and for all.

The point is the application of freedom of speech. The questions the judges are asking have "right" answers that this law doesn't answer. The next proposed law like this could.

The justices' questions should not be assumed to imply legitimacy. Those questions probably do not have "right" answers and that is probably why they are being asked in this way. You are interpreting the Justices in a way that is more convenient than it is accurate by taking their searching questions at face value rather than understanding their intention.

It happened to sexual content, it can happen to violence.

My point, as I have said from the onset, is that freedom of speech is not 100% absolute.

Your point from the onset has been that this case is about anything but freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is outside the scope of the First Amendment. If you are attempting to get violent content retroactively ruled outside First Amendment protection, you have a long, uphill battle before you. Judges have gone to great lengths to discourage exactly what you are trying to do, which is use existing obscenity legislation as carte blanche to eradicate First Amendment protections without justification.

Just because you can name one thing that is not protected by the First Amendment does not mean it is toothless.

You have a fixation on absolutes.

My contention from the outset has been that freedom of speech is not absolute; as many on this site, particularly this article, seem to presuppose.

I am not claiming that the first amendment is toothless. My point is that many "rights" are interpreted differently when it comes to involving minors. We can't prohibit sale of alcohol, but we can prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors. We can't revoke the right to bear arms, except to minors and we can require the passing of background checks.

Many rights, including the Bill thereof, are quite potent. The misconception I am seeing is that they are 100% absolute, when they very often (granted, for good reason) have limitations, especially when concerning minors.

It is not impossible that a better defined law prohibiting the sale of violent media to minors could pass. This law, probably not. The hypothetical law would need a stronger justification, a much more specific definition, and broader application. The hypothetical law wouldn't be as horrible as people are claiming. It wouldn't lead to a slippery slope because the first amendment fully protects sale to adults and the definition would be very limited. In the end, it would not allow for the sale of inappropriately violent media to minors; which like I tried to say in the beginning is something many in the industry, including this website, support.

This law will most likey not pass, but it isn't the end of it either way. If it passes, minors can't buy violent media; I suppose the better phrasing is; violent media can't be sold to minors. If it doesn't, legislators will just try again until they find something acceptable. A ruling that completely nullifies future attempts seems unlikely.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You have a fixation on absolutes.

And you are dodging the issue.

My contention from the outset has been that freedom of speech is not absolute; as many on this site, particularly this article, seem to presuppose.

No one presupposes that. You are falsely inferring from this that video games are not protected from government regulation by the First Amendment. Pointing out your error does not mean we have a fixation on absolutes. You are making hasty generalizations and accusing anyone who doesn't follow you down the rabbit hole of absolutism.

I am not claiming that the first amendment is toothless. My point is that many "rights" are interpreted differently when it comes to involving minors.

Now restate that in a way that is relevant to the First Amendment and you will have a point. I don't think it can be done.

We can't prohibit sale of alcohol,

This is kind of a tangent, but we can, we have, we do. Pull over in Atlanta on a Sunday and try to find a six pack. And there are dry counties all over the place.

...but we can prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors. We can't revoke the right to bear arms, except to minors and we can require the passing of background checks.

And yet, we can't regulate sale to minors of protected speech. That is what the law is. It does not matter how many examples of underage regulation you present. Seriously, give me another. And another. Doesn't matter.

Many rights, including the Bill thereof, are quite potent. The misconception I am seeing is that they are 100% absolute, when they very often (granted, for good reason) have limitations, especially when concerning minors.

It is not impossible that a better defined law prohibiting the sale of violent media to minors could pass.

Not impossible, just unconstitutional.

This law, probably not. The hypothetical law would need a stronger justification, a much more specific definition, and broader application.

It is difficult to imagine a likely scenario where this would not also be unconstitutional.

The hypothetical law wouldn't be as horrible as people are claiming. It wouldn't lead to a slippery slope because the first amendment fully protects sale to adults and the definition would be very limited.

Your argument is that sales to adults are protected? Well, sales to minors are protected, but that is apparently no barrier to legislation. Putting it that way is more like a threat than a reassurance. But what has us worried are concerns much more far reaching and potentially sinister.

In the end, it would not allow for the sale of inappropriately violent media to minors; which like I tried to say in the beginning is something many in the industry, including this website, support.

Not selling to minors, yes. Censorship, no.

This law will most likey not pass, but it isn't the end of it either way.

And that is what makes free speech advocacy and public outcry so important.

If it passes, minors can't buy violent media; I suppose the better phrasing is; violent media can't be sold to minors. If it doesn't, legislators will just try again until they find something acceptable.

Of course. They've been at it over two centuries now. They've failed for two centuries, yet they could be successful at any time. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

A ruling that completely nullifies future attempts seems unlikely.

While I think a somewhat wishy-washy decision is more likely, I definitely wouldn't call that outcome unlikely. If ever they were to totally crush a piece of legislation, I can't think of anything more appropriate for a total crushing.