281: Battlefield: Washington

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent[1]. Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

[1] The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings.

I think if anything in this case, behind the scenes court clerks may have helped the ESA more than anything they could have written and argued.

Delusibeta:
Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

No, the law would have put in place a separate labeling system that was controlled by the state.

Generally, I look to Scalia for indications of how the conservative wing of the court is likely going to act. Sotomayor, in contrast, is often a good indicator of the more liberal half of the court. While I understand that the questions aren't always indicative of the ruling (and that the article will have an understandable slant in favor of the ECA), it is pretty clear that the justices were hostile to the California attorney's line of argument. His argument clearly hurt his side during the questioning, as nothing quite makes you bad like saying "I've never experienced this kind of medium before, but I feel totally inclined to make legislation on it."

Delusibeta:
Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

Does anyone else feel as if this article would be better suited in like 30 years from now. I have no idea why this article annoys me so much, it just seems like I'm reading a documentary about something where almost everyone involved has died from old age, and we were able to find this one woman who was there that historical day. Or an overanalyzed golf match with the commentators whispering with the tone of something really dramatic happening (He picked the 5 iron that's really gonna cost him.) I don't know why I wrote this comment, just something here offends me on some level, and maybe that it offends me is the real reason I'm getting worked up.

Vanguard_Ex:

Delusibeta:
Wait a minute.

The bill proposed that games that were deemed to contain "deviant violence" would be labeled as such (in addition to the voluntary ratings the ESRB already provides) and that it would be a criminal offense to sell such games to minors under the age of 18.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

It's a good thing that no one bothered to file a class action lawsuit against the ECA when they pulled that Amazon-discount-bait-and-switch on their members (back in the day when they still had members) or Mercurio would have been too busy defending her client to take time out and frolic her ass down to D.C.

JDKJ:

Vanguard_Ex:

Delusibeta:
Wait a minute.

My previous understanding was that the bill had made ERSB legally binding. Now it seems that it just gives California the power to stamp "AO" on any game they deem too violent (The UK has a similar law, except it's outright bans instead of increased ratings). Which is, in my opinion, not nearly as bad. Of course, that last statement ignored First Admentment and Constitution arguements...

I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

Greg Tito:
Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

It must be pointed out that the attorney from California, Morazzini, might have made a serious mistake when he said that he had little knowledge of videogames and it could have cost California its case. "Morazzini may have offended the Court in his admitting never to have played videogames, which made it seem like he didn't know what he was talking about regarding the media overall,"

I know ad Homonim arguments are not really the best thing but i think this should blow any notion of the law being een mildly valid out of the water. Look at these blowhard fuckheads. How do they think they can be taken seriously? It's a law concived by those who simply not just know little but know nothing about the subject at hand. Imagine someone comming along and saying they want to restrict films/DVDs/Tv and all other forms of video like "Pornography" when they have never seen any form of moving picture in their life. Imagine the same for books, someone going on a vicious attack on ALL forms of literature having never read, not only a book, but even a word.

Now books and films are almost unbiquitous and it seems that the only crimes videogames are guilty of is that they are not understood by everyone. Yet.

The fact that this is not being laughed out of existence depresses me greatly.

dastardly:

Greg Tito:
Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

Anything short of a unanimous decision is likely to fuel the fires of the Leland Yees of the world. And I doubt the Court will come back unanimous. I'm betting that at least Breyer will write a dissenting opinion that'll sprinkle enough of a breadcrumb trail for future legislative attempts to follow.

'Vibe, vibration, stakes is high. You know them stakes is high'

-De La Soul, 1996.

I always think of this song whenever I read about the Supreme Court video game case. This is kind of a big deal folks.

Vanguard_Ex:

JDKJ:

Vanguard_Ex:
I was thinking the same thing. Although I'm fully aware that I'm more than likely mistaken.

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

A good read, the site is the only place I see any coverage of this and its interesting to hear about whats going on.

Im glad to hear the representative of the games industry was confident and understood not only the medium but also how to respond to probing questions about how it is different from other mediums under the first amendment.

The guy representing California, makes me happy he sounded like he had no idea what he was doing. But also makes me upset given the complete ignorance of the people behind this case, to put someone forward who doesnt understand much about the medium shows they themselves truely don't understand it as they would have chosen someone with more background knowledge.

Hope the decision goes the way of the games industry, and after reading that, makes me feel happier :)

JDKJ:

Vanguard_Ex:

JDKJ:

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

:3

True story. Especially since nowadays it seems that the stages of mental maturity don't seem to follow physical.

I'm feeling optomistic here, even though the Justices -are- the last generation or the generation before that, they're at least rational in the way they see video games, Justice Scalia was brilliant in the first half of the hearing though :P

Sadly I dont find it hard to believe that Morazzni has never played a video game in his life, if he had he might not be such a dick, he's just one of those stuffy old guys who's afraid of new things, much the same as all the other groups that hate on video games, or the groups back in the day that tried to get Dungeons & Dragons banned, he will never understand them, and will never try to understand them, his argument was falling apart at the seems before he'd finished making it.

I think at this point, given what happened in the court, the worst that could happen is they slap a "Warning: "Deviant" or extreme violence, not reccomended for children" thing on the front cover, which to be honest I think we'd be better off with, as it gives no excuse to parents to blame the industry because it quite clearly states on the box that it's not for kids.

JDKJ:

Vanguard_Ex:

JDKJ:

It's unconstitutional to have a law which gives the standards of a private entity such as the ESRB the force of law. Only legislatures are empowered under the constitutions (state and federal) to pass laws. They can't delegate that authority to a private entity.

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

It could be if there's scenes of a sexual nature, as correct me if I'm wrong you have to be 18 in the states to have sex right? Although aside from Leisure suit larry and possibly GTA San Adreas, I can't think of any games that would qualify for games. I dont know though, I'm in Britain and we have an 18 rating here too, as well as the ESRB/PEGI rating of 17+ but the 18 age rating is done by the British Board of Film Classification, which is law, but the BBFC only does some games.

I don't think this law was ever meant to succeed. Legislators just wanted to seem like they tried so they can say to their constituency, "Look! I defended families, but those evil liberals want to train your precious children to kill babies." The lack luster support shows they never really cared about the law in the first place. I can't say that I blame them either. It is better for them to gain the support from retarded parents than teens and young adults who can't/don't vote.

The Admiral:
I don't think this law was ever meant to succeed. Legislators just wanted to seem like they tried so they can say to their constituency, "Look! I defended families, but those evil liberals want to train your precious children to kill babies." The lack luster support shows they never really cared about the law in the first place. I can't say that I blame them either. It is better for them to gain the support from retarded parents than teens and young adults who can't/don't vote.

Maybe Justice Scalia was just bored and he wanted to rip the bill a new one personally?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8299-Critical-Miss-Trolling-for-Justice

comes to mind.

elvor0:
-snip-

In the states, the Age of Consent varies from state to state. For example, here in Washington state, the AoC is 16 within like 2 or 4 years, meaning that once you're 16, the age of your partner can be up to 20. Pornographic material, however, is something that is completely restricted to people 18 and over, and if you look at the games currently listed as AO, they all are pornographic (with the exception of ONE, which looks like shit, so I'm not really counting it. AO games are treated like pornography here, meaning that they aren't sold ANYWHERE other than a couple of places like certain sex shops and such. This is not because of law, but because of the store policies of every large retailer in the US. They WIL NOT sell any game rated AO, no ifs, ands, or buts. The law would allow California to label any game they damn well please as pornography, which would result in it being absent from every store in the state. Enough info, good sir? :3

Totally unrelated, I came in here expecting an announcement for a new Battlefield game set in Seattle or something... D:

JDKJ:

dastardly:

Greg Tito:
Battlefield: Washington

Jennifer Mercurio of the ECA had a front row view of the landmark case that brought videogames into the Supreme Court, and what she saw was both surprising and encouraging.

Read Full Article

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

Anything short of a unanimous decision is likely to fuel the fires of the Leland Yees of the world. And I doubt the Court will come back unanimous. I'm betting that at least Breyer will write a dissenting opinion that'll sprinkle enough of a breadcrumb trail for future legislative attempts to follow.

You're probably right on that. My hope, though, is that the breadcrumb leads down a trail so precarious and narrow that folks end up deciding it's not worth it.... at least for long enough until something new attracts the sharks elsewhere.

I actually read the entire court case, the brilliant denunciation of California's argument by the Supreme Court made me say, "Fuck yeah!" And even when Paul Smith took heat, he replied confidently and smartly. I'm really positive about what will happen.

Ephraim J. Witchwood:

elvor0:
-snip-

In the states, the Age of Consent varies from state to state. For example, here in Washington state, the AoC is 16 within like 2 or 4 years, meaning that once you're 16, the age of your partner can be up to 20. Pornographic material, however, is something that is completely restricted to people 18 and over, and if you look at the games currently listed as AO, they all are pornographic (with the exception of ONE, which looks like shit, so I'm not really counting it. AO games are treated like pornography here, meaning that they aren't sold ANYWHERE other than a couple of places like certain sex shops and such. This is not because of law, but because of the store policies of every large retailer in the US. They WIL NOT sell any game rated AO, no ifs, ands, or buts. The law would allow California to label any game they damn well please as pornography, which would result in it being absent from every store in the state. Enough info, good sir? :3

Totally unrelated, I came in here expecting an announcement for a new Battlefield game set in Seattle or something... D:

Ah righto ta very much, I was a bit unsure how it worked in the states, but that pretty much answers anything I would need to know :P

Also yeah i was expecting a new Battlefield too but this news is just as good.

dastardly:

JDKJ:

dastardly:

The idea has been put to the flame and tested. The justices, even those that seemed to be on CA's side, seem to be seeing through the reactionary jargon and dealing with the fundamental questions. Those questions, in time, will reveal this law to be:

1) Vague in its definition of what is to be labelled.
2) Unnecessary, given the weak links between "deviant violence" in games and violent children.
3) Overly-prescriptive, in that it forces the government to take on the role of the already-sufficiently-equipped parent.
4) Poorly mapped out, in terms of enforcement (and funding for enforcement)

They'll strike down this law, most definitely. The danger comes in how they strike down the law. If they extend First Amendment protections to video games (or, rather, refuse to provide the exception), we're in the clear. If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

Let's hope the hammer comes down a bit harder than that on the matter. It looks likely, but you just never know...

Anything short of a unanimous decision is likely to fuel the fires of the Leland Yees of the world. And I doubt the Court will come back unanimous. I'm betting that at least Breyer will write a dissenting opinion that'll sprinkle enough of a breadcrumb trail for future legislative attempts to follow.

You're probably right on that. My hope, though, is that the breadcrumb leads down a trail so precarious and narrow that folks end up deciding it's not worth it.... at least for long enough until something new attracts the sharks elsewhere.

Which it eventually will. Once upon a time, the blood in the water came from movies. Then, it was comic books. Today, it's video games. Sooner or later, they'll latch on to some other scent of blood and swim off in pursuit. Bound to happen.

P.S.: Having now added on to it, I regret the comparison of sharks to politicians as being unfairly insulting to sharks. Your average shark's 100 times more intelligent than your average politician.

elvor0:
I'm feeling optomistic here, even though the Justices -are- the last generation or the generation before that, they're at least rational in the way they see video games, Justice Scalia was brilliant in the first half of the hearing though :P

Sadly I dont find it hard to believe that Morazzni has never played a video game in his life, if he had he might not be such a dick, he's just one of those stuffy old guys who's afraid of new things, much the same as all the other groups that hate on video games, or the groups back in the day that tried to get Dungeons & Dragons banned, he will never understand them, and will never try to understand them, his argument was falling apart at the seems before he'd finished making it.

I think at this point, given what happened in the court, the worst that could happen is they slap a "Warning: "Deviant" or extreme violence, not reccomended for children" thing on the front cover, which to be honest I think we'd be better off with, as it gives no excuse to parents to blame the industry because it quite clearly states on the box that it's not for kids.

JDKJ:

Vanguard_Ex:

Ahh, gotcha...thanks man.

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

It could be if there's scenes of a sexual nature, as correct me if I'm wrong you have to be 18 in the states to have sex right? Although aside from Leisure suit larry and possibly GTA San Adreas, I can't think of any games that would qualify for games. I dont know though, I'm in Britain and we have an 18 rating here too, as well as the ESRB/PEGI rating of 17+ but the 18 age rating is done by the British Board of Film Classification, which is law, but the BBFC only does some games.

Pornographic content is usually what it takes for a game to earn the ESRB's "AO" rating. But I'm still not quite understanding why an 18-year-old is old enough to deal with jiggling titties and ass but a 17-year-old isn't.

JDKJ:

dastardly:

JDKJ:

Anything short of a unanimous decision is likely to fuel the fires of the Leland Yees of the world. And I doubt the Court will come back unanimous. I'm betting that at least Breyer will write a dissenting opinion that'll sprinkle enough of a breadcrumb trail for future legislative attempts to follow.

You're probably right on that. My hope, though, is that the breadcrumb leads down a trail so precarious and narrow that folks end up deciding it's not worth it.... at least for long enough until something new attracts the sharks elsewhere.

Which it eventually will. Once upon a time, the blood in the water came from movies. Then, it was comic books. Today, it's video games. Sooner or later, they'll latch on to some other scent of blood and swim off in pursuit. Bound to happen.

P.S.: Having now added on to it, I regret the comparison of sharks to politicians as being unfairly insulting to sharks. Your average shark's 100 times more intelligent than your average politician.

Or at least more honest about their intentions.

This is the result of not doing your homework Zackery, now you go to bed and no dinner!

I had the chance to read the entire transcript of the hearing, and while I wasn't able to see the faces or hear the tones of voices, I still thought that the Justices were just completely wrecking Cali's shit in the first half. They were much more serious when faced with Smith in the second half, and it actually sounded like a discussion while Smith was up.

I sometimes cry in a corner at my own state's idiocy, but I'm just glad that the rest of the country isn't as retarded.

Here's hoping for a future win for video games!

*clink*

Maybe this is just me, but I was operating under the impression that you had to be at least seventeen or older to purchase M rated games. As well, isn't it usually the parents' discretion as to what games they allow their children to play? My parents have always been pretty lenient, yes, but they were also pretty strict on the mature games. So I thought most parents were like this, that it was the parents' responsibility to look after what it was that their kids played; it's not that hard to figure out that a game with a Mature rating isn't appropriate for a young kid. Still, I think it's more of something that should be left to parents' discretion instead of having the government enforce something that seems incredibly subjective - what defines 'deviance' and 'extreme violence' anyway?

I've never encountered anything that has a higher rating than M though. :/

But this reminds me a little of the fear-mongering that the media tends to do whenever video games get involved and it bugs me. A lot. It feels as though a lot of these people have never picked up a video game before and are just wildly speculating about the fact that just because someone might have played a game before - whether it's extremely violent or not - that automatically means that it's entirely the games fault for what they did or how they turned out. It's like all of the other factors that could come into play into turning someone into a 'deviant' or criminal are irrelevant because obviously video games are the primary culprit. /sarcasm

Seriously, I wonder why people try to argue something when they don't even understand what they're arguing against. And that can come back and shoot them in the foot. To use an example: Recently a Catholic priest read through the entire Harry Potter series which has largely been deemed 'Satanical' and the like, and discovered that to the contrary, it promoted values that Christianity encourages or endorses.

Then again, there are a lot of idiots out there who fail to realize that somethings are a joke and continue to think that they're in the right despite their own ignorance. As my Social Studies teacher once said: "You're not entitled to your own opinion, you're entitled to your own INFORMED opinion."

JDKJ:

elvor0:
I'm feeling optomistic here, even though the Justices -are- the last generation or the generation before that, they're at least rational in the way they see video games, Justice Scalia was brilliant in the first half of the hearing though :P

Sadly I dont find it hard to believe that Morazzni has never played a video game in his life, if he had he might not be such a dick, he's just one of those stuffy old guys who's afraid of new things, much the same as all the other groups that hate on video games, or the groups back in the day that tried to get Dungeons & Dragons banned, he will never understand them, and will never try to understand them, his argument was falling apart at the seems before he'd finished making it.

I think at this point, given what happened in the court, the worst that could happen is they slap a "Warning: "Deviant" or extreme violence, not reccomended for children" thing on the front cover, which to be honest I think we'd be better off with, as it gives no excuse to parents to blame the industry because it quite clearly states on the box that it's not for kids.

JDKJ:

You're welcome. And I'll add that I've never quite understood the difference between the ESRB's "M" rating (17 years and over) and its "AO" rating (18 years and over). Seventeen years old and eighteen years old. What's the difference (other than 365 days)?

It could be if there's scenes of a sexual nature, as correct me if I'm wrong you have to be 18 in the states to have sex right? Although aside from Leisure suit larry and possibly GTA San Adreas, I can't think of any games that would qualify for games. I dont know though, I'm in Britain and we have an 18 rating here too, as well as the ESRB/PEGI rating of 17+ but the 18 age rating is done by the British Board of Film Classification, which is law, but the BBFC only does some games.

Pornographic content is usually what it takes for a game to earn the ESRB's "AO" rating. But I'm still not quite understanding why an 18-year-old is old enough to deal with jiggling titties and ass but a 17-year-old isn't.

I guess it just stems from the law that you have to be 18 to buy porn seeing as that applies to all visual media (magazines, movies and games) and they havent changed it yet, personally I think it should be 16 as that's the age you have to be to lawfully have sex.

In the states I guess it's easier to have a blanket 18 rating due to porn being controlled by the US overall government as opposed to the age to have sex which is different in each state. 16 to shag and 18 to read porn doesn't really make much sense in Britain anymore however.

The 18 classification for Britian isnt just for porn though, it's for GTA and stuff like that, just stuff that is generally adult, wheras in america the only games that's gonna get ranked AO is porn, which is fair enough not having in Game stores as it only exists to be porn, abet the only country that really makes porn games is Japan and I dont know if they even make physical copies of said games for anywhere else outside of Japan

elvor0:

JDKJ:

elvor0:
I'm feeling optomistic here, even though the Justices -are- the last generation or the generation before that, they're at least rational in the way they see video games, Justice Scalia was brilliant in the first half of the hearing though :P

Sadly I dont find it hard to believe that Morazzni has never played a video game in his life, if he had he might not be such a dick, he's just one of those stuffy old guys who's afraid of new things, much the same as all the other groups that hate on video games, or the groups back in the day that tried to get Dungeons & Dragons banned, he will never understand them, and will never try to understand them, his argument was falling apart at the seems before he'd finished making it.

I think at this point, given what happened in the court, the worst that could happen is they slap a "Warning: "Deviant" or extreme violence, not reccomended for children" thing on the front cover, which to be honest I think we'd be better off with, as it gives no excuse to parents to blame the industry because it quite clearly states on the box that it's not for kids.

It could be if there's scenes of a sexual nature, as correct me if I'm wrong you have to be 18 in the states to have sex right? Although aside from Leisure suit larry and possibly GTA San Adreas, I can't think of any games that would qualify for games. I dont know though, I'm in Britain and we have an 18 rating here too, as well as the ESRB/PEGI rating of 17+ but the 18 age rating is done by the British Board of Film Classification, which is law, but the BBFC only does some games.

Pornographic content is usually what it takes for a game to earn the ESRB's "AO" rating. But I'm still not quite understanding why an 18-year-old is old enough to deal with jiggling titties and ass but a 17-year-old isn't.

I guess it just stems from the law that you have to be 18 to buy porn seeing as that applies to all visual media (magazines, movies and games) and they havent changed it yet, personally I think it should be 16 as that's the age you have to be to lawfully have sex.

In the states I guess it's easier to have a blanket 18 rating due to porn being controlled by the US overall government as opposed to the age to have sex which is different in each state. 16 to shag and 18 to read porn doesn't really make much sense in Britain anymore however.

The 18 classification for Britian isnt just for porn though, it's for GTA and stuff like that, just stuff that is generally adult, wheras in america the only games that's gonna get ranked AO is porn, which is fair enough not having in Game stores as it only exists to be porn, abet the only country that really makes porn games is Japan and I dont know if they even make physical copies of said games for anywhere else outside of Japan

Pretty sharp guess there, my man. That is exactly what it stems from: you can't sell pornography to anyone under 18 years old.

Pirate Kitty:
The fact that this is not being laughed out of existence depresses me greatly.

Being laughed out of existence would be a bad thing. A ruling by the Supreme Court is a big deal, and can spell out the fate of the entire industry. If they rule in favor of the games industry, and refuse to exempt video games from the 1st Amendment, the precedent will make it nearly impossible for any legislators to put a law like this into effect. Not only state legislatures, but federal ones as well.

Gone will be the constant assault by pandering politicians, looking to earn some cheap votes by flying the "for the children" banner.

On the other hand, if they rule that the law is acceptable, that's going to change the entire industry in the same way that the Comics Code Authority crippled the maturation of the American comics industry for decades. It wouldn't kill it, but the types of games we'd see from major publishers and studios would definitely be impacted.

dastardly:
If they merely strike down the law as "too vague," but uphold the idea that CA should be able to pass a law about things like this, it opens the door for a long-term siege in which the industry will be bombarded with countless variations of the law.

This, in my opinion, would be the worst outcome. It will just open the doors for even more of these laws, which will result in more legal challenges, which we (the public) are ultimately paying for. And there's no guarantee when or if it would ever reach the Supreme Court again. If they overturn the law based on this reasoning, it's the cop out answer, where they rule based on a technicality without making any meaningful decision whatsoever.

I would like to thank James Madison for making Canada possible. ;)

On topic: I can't wait to hear the results, they can't come too soon..

Hold the phone. The man representing California knows nothing about video games? Did any of the Justices tear him a new one, because I know I would have.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here