Supreme Court May Be Proving Point By Hearing CA Law

[dalek sec]

Oh I pray by the many gods that roam the night sky that Byod is right about this. If it get's crushed tomorrow I'll send the courts a bloody hand written thank you note for doing the right thing and send that prick Yee a cake in the shape of the Portal cake.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This bullshit has been raging for nearly two decades now.
As much as I wish this would be the Final Say, I know better.

You can never 'fix' a dedicated idiot, nevermind an entire group of them.

 

[lacktheknack]

I, too, hope that Boyd is correct. And if he is, maybe we can put this mess behind us for good.

Ahahaha! Oh, you kill me. Don't you know that video games are evil and dangerous? You know that, instead of being mass-produced, each individual disc is shat out by Hitler down there in Hell and shipped up to Earth by the souls of dead babies?

We're never putting this behind us, man. As long as there is fear to be wrung from gullible idiots, gamers will be "the enemy" and games will be on trial. It'll come around again in some form or other.

Novels escaped the stigma... as did radio, rock music, and television.

We'll be harmless soon enough, I'm just hoping it will happen after this.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Don't get too excited boys and girls. This could just as easily be an attempt for SCOTUS to show all the state courts that they've "gotten it wrong". I hopy Boyd's right, but remember that this is just one lawyer's opinion.

 

[sir.rutthed]

This bullshit has been raging for nearly two decades now.
As much as I wish this would be the Final Say, I know better.

You can never 'fix' a dedicated idiot, nevermind an entire group of them.

Don't worry. It'll all be better once we find something else to aim the idiots at. Like 2012, or we could get some openly gay guy to run for president.

 

[mr_rubino]

The SC has been known to take up cases to get the states to stop trying to jam unconstitutional things up everyone's rectums. Alternatively, they often hear cases that multiple federal districts disagree on that create wildly uneven interstate issues.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Novels escaped the stigma... as did radio, rock music, and television.

We'll be harmless soon enough, I'm just hoping it will happen after this.

Tell that to, say, Salman Rushdie. His novel was burned and banned for it's content. How about Marilyn Manson or various other musicians like him, who are accused of Satanism or corrupting the youth or any other things that "concerned parents" want to blame them for.

As for television, it's still a very hot-button issue. The sex, the violence, the swearing - to many (whiny) people, TV is still seen as a corrupting, very negative influence. You remember a few days back, there was that study showing that around 20% of the time minors could still purchase a video game with a rating higher than their age? Remember who was publicising their (highly selective) analysis of the data? The PATC. The Parents Against Television Council. The same people who are hating on games for their content are hating on TV for the same damn thing. Like I said, the fear never went away; those people are aiming at different, more media-friendly targets right now, but as soon as a controversy about TV rears it's head they'll be back to attacking it again.

 

[lacktheknack]

Novels escaped the stigma... as did radio, rock music, and television.

We'll be harmless soon enough, I'm just hoping it will happen after this.

Tell that to, say, Salman Rushdie. His novel was burned and banned for it's content. How about Marilyn Manson or various other musicians like him, who are accused of Satanism or corrupting the youth or any other things that "concerned parents" want to blame them for.

As for television, it's still a very hot-button issue. The sex, the violence, the swearing - to many (whiny) people, TV is still seen as a corrupting, very negative influence. You remember a few days back, there was that study showing that around 20% of the time minors could still purchase a video game with a rating higher than their age? Remember who was publicising their (highly selective) analysis of the data? The PATC. The Parents Against Television Council. The same people who are hating on games for their content are hating on TV for the same damn thing. Like I said, the fear never went away; those people are aiming at different, more media-friendly targets right now, but as soon as a controversy about TV rears it's head they'll be back to attacking it again.

As long as Jersey Shore exists, I'm forced to believe that no one truly cares about what's on TV.

I kind of see your point, but I'd like to note that book burning doesn't happen anymore, and no one is calling for banning certain TV shows.

 

[carpathic]

I do take some pride in the fact that the US Supreme court does tend to do a pretty good job of trying to ensure that the rights conferred by the consititution are upheld.

Bravo!

 

[SonicWaffle]

As long as Jersey Shore exists, I'm forced to believe that no one truly cares about what's on TV.

I kind of see your point, but I'd like to note that book burning doesn't happen anymore, and no one is calling for banning certain TV shows.

[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments[/link]

The Salman Rushdie thing was just a few years back. There are still parents attempting to get books like Harry Potter removed from school libraries at they believe they promote witchcraft and are unsuitable for children. Maybe they don't burn them so much anymore, but certain books still cause a furore of censorship and rhetoric.

As for TV shows, why do you think we have media watchdogs? The people who are there to take complaints from people that shows have too much sex or violence. Consider all the people who won't watch TV, or let their kids watch it, because they consider the content innapropriate. Adverts that show too much sexuality are banned after flurries of complaints. There are still people out there who want to neuter TV, leaving it clean and shiny and utterly boring. They are often the same people who want to do the same thing to computer games.

Once again, this stuff has never really gone away. As the internet likes to say - haters gonna hate. Some people just want to wrap everyone else in cotton wool.

 

[RatRace123]

I had actually never thought of it that way, I know (at least I think I do) what may happen if we lose the case. I hadn't given as much thought to what might happen if we win, people would have to shut up about it.

They probably wouldn't, but the whole "videogamez R Evulz an tehy made mah son kill peeple!" argument would have a lot less to parade out.

I hope they actually decided to see the law for this reason, and I hope that the law doesn't pass.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I hope he is right. Still pretty nail biting.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Finally, someone said something positive about this whole situation. Boyd might actually have a point here though. With other courts stating this is unconstitutional, why would the Supreme Court bother with this? Well let's hope that's the truth. We'll see tomorrow.

 

[luckycharms8282]

Why cant people just mind their own business and act responsibly?

 

[Solon5694]

We will see. As nice as it would be for the supreme court to defend gaming under the first amendment. I'm skeptical their reasoning for taking the case would be to save the states money. Almost any law the supreme court sees is going to have a similar effect of "saving money".

 

[Knusper]

I hope that the OP is right, even though I don't live in the US, but it would make a point globally.

One thing though, I still am a little confused over what California authorities are actually demanding in the courtroom, please help this confused and consequently vulnerable young child...

 

[theSovietConnection]

I honestly didn't think about it this way, but that's actually brilliant. I hope Boyd is right.

That doesnt sound brilliant to me at all unless I'm reading into it wrong.

The courts are teaching the states a lesson, using taxpayers money. So when the state loses, the taxpayers also lose because they've to foot the bill of it, including those taxpayers who would oppose the idea of state controlled video game ratings.

Maybe it if was Arnie and his buddies footing the bill, it would teach people a lesson about trying to do this sort of thing.

If this guy is correct, what he's saying is the Supreme Court is ultimately taking this case so that a precedent has been set on the Federal level, so that individual states will quit trying to propose these laws that end up costing taxpayers miilions when they fail. It would mean states might bear this into mind, that the highest court in the land has ruled against them, when they think about proposing any other laws like this.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I sincerely hope you're right.

 

[Triforceformer]

My fingers are crossed with rabbit feet made of 4 leaf clovers, and I'm knocking on wood for tomorrow. Hopefully this lucky horseshoe hat won't give me lower back issues.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Oh, wouldn't it be awesome if, in one of their opinions, a Justice just wrote: "You guys aren't getting it. First Amendment. Go look it up and stop trying."

Sadly, we'll probably get a really long essay instead that says pretty much the same thing.