Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I wonder whether these First Amendment rulings are being made because these judges really believe in what they say, or if they just think everything constitutes free speech...
Sure, this was a monumental decision, but take a look at this one from a few days ago...
http://consumerist.com/2011/06/supreme-court-says-data-mining-of-prescription-drug-records-is-free-speech.html
That's just depressing.
Sure, this was a monumental decision, but take a look at this one from a few days ago...
http://consumerist.com/2011/06/supreme-court-says-data-mining-of-prescription-drug-records-is-free-speech.html
That's just depressing.
Good. If my parents had to do it when I was young, so does every other parent. It tends to annoy me how some parents expect the government to watch their kids for them.RatRace123 said:
It is great news, isn't it? I'm sure a lot of gamers, myself included, have been a bit worried about this issue. This kinda feels like a movie moment... things always have to go wrong once, before you get to the happy ending.RatRace123 said:
It's not really about a minor being able to buy M-rated games, what really matters here is that video games are now deemed as art and are now protected under the first amendment; which in America is a HUGE deal. It means they have the same protection as music, pictoral art, and films and books. It has never actually been illegal for an underage person to purchase an M-rated game or a rated R movie. It's only illegal to sell porn to minors. Libraries in America have observed this for awhile now, with right to privacy acts. I was allowed to get my first library card at 13, and was allowed by law to rent rated R movies from the library, and the library couldn't say no.voorhees123 said:
So children can now get their hands on violent games legally?
How is this a good thing?
I thought it would be better to establish better boundaries not demolish them.
Games should be treated equal to films in my opinion.
Some films are made for adults and shouldn't be viewed by children legally.
How is this a good thing?
I thought it would be better to establish better boundaries not demolish them.
Games should be treated equal to films in my opinion.
Some films are made for adults and shouldn't be viewed by children legally.
That's the point with this ruling games are being treated the same as films, no governmental oversight just industry self-regulation.Optional Opinion said:
The law itself was written poorly, the case transcript is awesome to read. Some gems like, Whats ok for someon 18years and 1 days to play but not for 17years 364days to play?
Happy Gamer Is Happy!!!!
Can you feel a brand new day...
Also, because a video game song is mandatory.
Eat it California, now go home and be a family man!
Can you feel a brand new day...
Also, because a video game song is mandatory.
Eat it California, now go home and be a family man!
Reflectively, I finally get to witness a end of an era; legally, the end of meaningless babel and useless "Save the Childrens" activist propaganda (propaganda that later became the basis for programs that targeted young adults like me in my school system).
While I do not doubt that these activists will continue their campaign, this decision is a legal deathblow for their movement; statistically, it will likely be decades before they can even attempt an appeal and it will be an uphill battle for them with this ruling as a foundation.
On a more personal note: If you were part of said activist groups, then I believe you deserve every ounce of spite, hate, humiliation, shame and baseless scapegoating you forced upon me and my demographic. Because of activists like you, I had to put up with my high school faculty treating me like the next potential Columbine shooter just because of the games I played and discussed with my friends (based on correlations made between the Columbine case and gaming).
I was forced into therapy I did not need and obstructed from attending class on two occasions until a shrink said I could otherwise (even the shrink found these mandates absurd). You have no idea what it feels like to be used as political chum for a "feel-good" or "better-safe-than-sorry" agenda; I do and it's neither fair, nor pleasant.
So today, I happily celebrate the legal death of the basis for your profoundly stupid arguments and ugly holier-than-thou politicking, and I hope that someday this decision will enable my generation to use video games to create a cultural milestone just to further prove how fucking wrong you were all those years.
Cheerio.
*toasts*
While I do not doubt that these activists will continue their campaign, this decision is a legal deathblow for their movement; statistically, it will likely be decades before they can even attempt an appeal and it will be an uphill battle for them with this ruling as a foundation.
On a more personal note: If you were part of said activist groups, then I believe you deserve every ounce of spite, hate, humiliation, shame and baseless scapegoating you forced upon me and my demographic. Because of activists like you, I had to put up with my high school faculty treating me like the next potential Columbine shooter just because of the games I played and discussed with my friends (based on correlations made between the Columbine case and gaming).
I was forced into therapy I did not need and obstructed from attending class on two occasions until a shrink said I could otherwise (even the shrink found these mandates absurd). You have no idea what it feels like to be used as political chum for a "feel-good" or "better-safe-than-sorry" agenda; I do and it's neither fair, nor pleasant.
So today, I happily celebrate the legal death of the basis for your profoundly stupid arguments and ugly holier-than-thou politicking, and I hope that someday this decision will enable my generation to use video games to create a cultural milestone just to further prove how fucking wrong you were all those years.
Cheerio.
*toasts*
Thank you, SCOTUS. This seemed like the obvious find to most of us over here, but you never know.
As it currently stands, the video game industry in the U.S. is self-regulating. This isn't perfect, by any means, but it works reasonably well, and more to the point, it works very similarly to how movies in the U.S. work. I'd actually argue that there's probably greater enforcement of ESRB guidelines at most major electronics retailers than there is of MPAA guidelines at most movie theaters. The ESRB has actually been praised for how well it works by Congress. So there's that at the start- there's already a system in place, and it works fairly well.
Mind you, that doesn't help if some adult decides to buy their six-year-old God of War 3, but the same applies for some idiot taking that six-year-old to Watchmen.
The California law was incredibly badly written and over-reaching. There's real suggestion that the people responsible for it just hated video games; the law mandated enormous labels on violent games, not unlike those on cigarettes (note the ESRB already labels games clearly.) More to the point, it would have put an over-18 limit on any game featuring "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." There are plenty of games currently rated T or even E-10 that feature relatively bloodless killing of human beings; Sotomayor also pointed out early in discussions that a strict reading of that wording wouldn't prohibit explicit violence to, say, a Vulcan.
The law threatened fines easily capable of wiping out a retailer's profits for the entire video game section on the basis of a couple of mistakes. It had the potential to do real harm to the industry and the medium, and create a precedent for a patchwork of badly-written and over-reaching laws throughout the United States (potentially with each of those states having its own law) that could be crippling.
I can hardly express how glad I am that this decision was reached. It was a bad, bad law, and it needed to die.
There are a number of takes on offer here, but let me offer my own two cents.dochmbi said:
As it currently stands, the video game industry in the U.S. is self-regulating. This isn't perfect, by any means, but it works reasonably well, and more to the point, it works very similarly to how movies in the U.S. work. I'd actually argue that there's probably greater enforcement of ESRB guidelines at most major electronics retailers than there is of MPAA guidelines at most movie theaters. The ESRB has actually been praised for how well it works by Congress. So there's that at the start- there's already a system in place, and it works fairly well.
Mind you, that doesn't help if some adult decides to buy their six-year-old God of War 3, but the same applies for some idiot taking that six-year-old to Watchmen.
The California law was incredibly badly written and over-reaching. There's real suggestion that the people responsible for it just hated video games; the law mandated enormous labels on violent games, not unlike those on cigarettes (note the ESRB already labels games clearly.) More to the point, it would have put an over-18 limit on any game featuring "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." There are plenty of games currently rated T or even E-10 that feature relatively bloodless killing of human beings; Sotomayor also pointed out early in discussions that a strict reading of that wording wouldn't prohibit explicit violence to, say, a Vulcan.
The law threatened fines easily capable of wiping out a retailer's profits for the entire video game section on the basis of a couple of mistakes. It had the potential to do real harm to the industry and the medium, and create a precedent for a patchwork of badly-written and over-reaching laws throughout the United States (potentially with each of those states having its own law) that could be crippling.
I can hardly express how glad I am that this decision was reached. It was a bad, bad law, and it needed to die.