Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Some people just lack common sense, otherwise this wouldn't get this far.

"Justice Samuel Alit also noted that the medium of videogames was utterly beyond the imaginings of the men who created the First Amendment."

Err...

Weren't films, pop music and rap too?

deth2munkies:
I read the whole thing, and it was quite a good read. Obviously the justices have to question both arguments as much as possible, but it seemed to display the weakness of the opposition's argument when Roberts (and others, but him mostly) had to keep falling back on the, "Lighting schoolgirls on fire...REALLY?" argument every time he made a point.

I don't even see this part of the argument, i mean "a clockwork orange" has 3 rape scenes, a murder with a gaint fallace, sex, nudity, and lashings of the old... ultraviolence. Beat that.

JUSTICE SCALIA:Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
MR. MORAZZINI:Agreed, Your Honor.But the level of violence-
JUSTICE SCALIA:Are they okay? Are you going to ban them too?

This has reached new heights of awesomeness xD

- Edit -

"So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?"

Sent me into fucking hysterics =D I love these guys!

Cryo84R:
I love Justice Scalia.

Honestly he comes across as a major cockbag in so many rulings I've read.

But good lord, I don't know if I can ever be mad at him again. His points, and those made by the rest of the supreme court, were all so grounded in sound reason and law.

The entire time I'm thinking "dude I want to take this whole group to somewhere fancy to eat and just listen to them talk."

I realize starting that off with "dude" sets the stage for my own intellectual level.

It was a profound pleasure to read those transcripts.

Andy Chalk:

But the Court hammered away at the game industry as well, asking attorney Paul M. Smith why exactly it believed that government shouldn't have the right to keep videogames that include such acts as setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them out of the hands of ten-year-olds. Justice Samuel Alit also noted that the medium of videogames was utterly beyond the imaginings of the men who created the First Amendment.

I really hope this Paul M. Smith guy responded to that with "and what game would that be?"

I would like to see them provide a game that lets you hit children over the head with a shovel while they pleed for you to stop or a game where you can sexually abuse a woman/man/anything before lighting them on fire and pissing on it

Andy Chalk:
Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online

that government shouldn't have the right to keep videogames that include such acts as setting schoolgirls on fire and then urinating on them out of the hands of ten-year-olds.

Permalink

What game lets you do that?
They are judging the fact that they think i just go ahead and buy a game like rapelay and just give it to any random kid on the street, And what game does let you set schoogirls on fire and urinate on them? Postal 2? We have grown up so much and you are still judging us on our old shames....

Yureina:

But... for those who may be concerned, i've seen transcripts or listened to Audio recordings of these arguments being presented, and this sounds pretty normal. The justices tend to pick at the arguments of both sides quite alot, so you guys should not freak out too much seeing these guys smack around the gaming argument here. That's just what these justices do.

Thanks Yurenia, I was a tad bit worried by them going after the argument there. I really do hope they meant a bit of what they said when they busted that prick Morazzini's chops when he was speaking. The man has a weak case and he knows it. So as I've said in this thread before, I'll pray and hope that we gamers are in the right this time.

Mechsoap:
i find it incredibly unfair that the only game shown to the court is postal 2. most games stay away from postal 2 since the developers don't feel right about making such games.

You are right, it is unfair. However if there is anything missing is the evidence that when you honestly look at the video game industry and the ESRB that the games industry actually releases more E rated games than any other rating. That is critical in the sense that the judges really don't know in terms of quantity the amount of M rated games are released when compared to the amount of E rated games.

Also another important fact of evidence is that they need to show the top selling games among kids. This is important because it will show that the games industry doesn't have control over what parents purchase or what kids want and shows that they don't market for profit by selling violent video games.

Also Postal 2's date of publication should also be used and compared to the next more violent game possible. Age of publication matters as the case is made recently and to grandfather games as a use of evidence means that the state had no problems until now.

I expect this to be a hard case for both sides but the games industry must force Leeland Yee's lawyer must demonstrate that video games are harmful towards children.

Fronzel:

JUSTICE KAGAN: You think Mortal Combat is
prohibited by this statute?

The transcription spelled "Mortal Combat" right, which means that it spelled it wrong.

LoL Well they're typing as they talk pretty much real time. They could've put a [sic] in there tho', but I mean the typist was probably going at least 90 to 120 wpm.

End this battle with BACK BACK DOWN HK.

Tenmar:

Mechsoap:
i find it incredibly unfair that the only game shown to the court is postal 2. most games stay away from postal 2 since the developers don't feel right about making such games.

You are right, it is unfair. However if there is anything missing is the evidence that when you honestly look at the video game industry and the ESRB that the games industry actually releases more E rated games than any other rating. That is critical in the sense that the judges really don't know in terms of quantity the amount of M rated games are released when compared to the amount of E rated games.

Also another important fact of evidence is that they need to show the top selling games among kids. This is important because it will show that the games industry doesn't have control over what parents purchase or what kids want and shows that they don't market for profit by selling violent video games.

Also Postal 2's date of publication should also be used and compared to the next more violent game possible. Age of publication matters as the case is made recently and to grandfather games as a use of evidence means that the state had no problems until now.

I expect this to be a hard case for both sides but the games industry must force Leeland Yee's lawyer must demonstrate that video games are harmful towards children.

Good eyes on you there.

The older the material cited for a case, the least likely chance when deliberations come around that it'll matter. Technology is known to the court to age a lot faster than other forms of media, so it'll probably get thrown out anyway.

Wish I could download that as a PDF, as it is it is hard to read for me for some reason. It will take a while. But what has been shared here leaves me with a bit of hope that there is sense on SCOTUS's benches.
Unless they decide to put in an early verdict on this, February is a long way away all of a sudden....

Mechsoap:
i find it incredibly unfair that the only game shown to the court is postal 2. most games stay away from postal 2 since the developers don't feel right about making such games.

Well Postal 2 wasn't the only example, but it is in the nature of witchhunters(I dare anyone to say this isn't a witchhunt:'Violence against aliens and artificial lifeforms would not be covered under the act' That's cutting a very skewed line there) to damn an entire culture or industry because of one act.
So far most of the justices are showing themselves to be a lot more objectionable than I was giving some of them credit for taking into account previous cases. I have to wonder if halfway in Mr. Morrazzini was starting to lose faith in some of his arguments. One would hope so as weak as they really are.

Why should games not be rectricted by the government? Because this suggests they have the right to censor and control all other media. A government that controls the media controls the minds of the people. These are how police states are formed.

Scrumpmonkey:
Personally i think the Games industry is at a natural disadvantage in this case no matter how baseline retarded the law is. The justices have no experience of the interactive medium and the tendancy is to fear the unknown and the new. If there is anywhere the 1st ammendment doesn't mean shit it's the supreme court.

Justice Scalia seemed to know what he was talking about

Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Y'know what I feel is unfair is that they take postal 2, a game from 5-10 years ago and use it as the example for modern videogames in the wsestern market. That would be like using a 50's porno as a representative for hollywood movies today, also

Scrumpmonkey:
I read the whole thing, and it was quite a good read. Obviously the justices have to question both arguments as much as possible, but it seemed to display the weakness of the opposition's argument when Roberts (and others, but him mostly) had to keep falling back on the, "Lighting schoolgirls on fire...REALLY?" argument every time he made a point.

What game is he referencing? if your going to use a leg to stand up on atleast SHOW us the leg.

The Wykydtron:
Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Does that mean Mr Morazinni is Edgeworth?

This makes me very happy. It also heightens my view of America(ns). Go, Supreme Court!

And I must admit that whenever they mention Postal 2 I can't help but feel a bit 'Yeah, sorry guys, our bad', because that game is disgusting. Really disgusting. I feel bad for playing it.

Otherwise, fuck video game haters.

Confused european here! Are we winning or...?

And on a somewhat related note:

cocoro67:

The Wykydtron:
Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Does that mean Mr Morazinni is Edgeworth?

Let's hope he's Winston Payne.

Infernal_Me:
My Favorite Qoute of the Transcript by JUSTICE SCALIA

"JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is there -- you've been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problem for the seller to know what's good and what's bad. California -- does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there -- is there any kind of opinion that the -- that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can't?

MR. MORAZZINI: Not that I'm aware of, Justice Ginsburg.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship."

I just read this, and I literally fell out my chair laughing. Scalia's got some really stinging, awesome lines. He's like a First Amendment Spiderman.

I think the reason there was such a focus on Postal 2 was that if there ever was a piece of evidence that it is possible for video game makers to be able to produce and release games with a blatant fixation on senseless violence, then Postal 2 fulfills that role. The argument that such games exist and can make it in to the hands of impressionable minors is one that is central to the success of the California law. They needed to convince the court that such games were a real threat to the well being of minors through their content and accessibility.

I believe that's why the counsel for the video game industry tried to assure the justices that there is not, and likely will never be, a situation where games like Postal 2 are secretly invading the homes of minors against the wills of their parents and actively subverting them to violent tendencies. To be successful in convincing the court that there is no problem which requires regulating would completely invalidate a large part of the law's support.

After reading the whole transcript I feel pretty confident that video games will come out of this one unscathed.

cocoro67:

The Wykydtron:
Mr Smith = Phoenix Wright

Does that mean Mr Morazinni is Edgeworth?

Please don't insult Miles Edgeworth like this. If he had to be anyone, it'd be mister Payne, the worst prosecutor in the series.

I read the whole thing. I think we made a strong case. The opposition's claims were constantly tripping over each other. I'm pretty sure we have a really good chance of succeeding here.

I think the mad country should be cleaning out the real world violence first... if they want to protect people taht bad -.-

And also... I think the amendements should be read anew to state a couple of breaches on it

(Hinting to the one about religion and state here)

Alright, so it seems like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Scalia are against the law for a number of reasons. Roberts and Alito don't seem as ready to dismiss the idea that states should be able to regulate games. I think it's much harder to tell what the rest of the Justices are thinking, and could therefore go either way. My guess is that this law is going to get struck down, but I expect to see some language in either the main opinion or concurrences that allows California and other states to draft narrower laws in an attempt to pass the strict scrutiny requirement.

ProfessorLayton:
That's funny... today is my birthday and I got Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney as a gift. Didn't even mean for that to happen.

No way I'm reading all that now, but I bookmarked the page and I'm going to read through it later. I'm extremely nervous.

Happy Birthday :D I hope you enjoy your day.

OT: Postal 2 does not equal games. There are just anomalies, as there is with anything. If you don't think movies don't have things like this, search A Serbian Film on Wikipedia. (not for the feint hearted)

But i'll read the transcript later.

Timbydude:
Um, that section doesn't make it sound like it's going too well. It shows that the Court might not view games as necessarily protected by the First Amendment, which is bad, bad news indeed.

It does seem rather like the court believes it to be a foregone conclusion. If so then perhaps it is...

...what game can you light a school girl on fire and then piss on her?... the sims? or is it one of those freaky hentai AO games?

Alright.... I just read the entire thing word for word.

Based on what I see, and on my own knowledge about how these cases go, I am thinking that this is going to get struck down. It probably won't be a totally decisive ruling (aka, they might leave some room for some degree of regulation), but I don't think that the California Law as it stands will survive in its present form. It just covers way too much.

On a side-note, I suddenly have realized once again why I actually liked my ConLaw classes. I like how these justices always seem to kick around anything that questionably does not make any sort of sense. Not just in this case, but in so many others before it. It is yet another example of my long-held belief that SCOTUS is the most sane part of the American Government. Always have been, and hopefully always will be.

When I saw this first I was like-
image

But then i was like-
image

Good to see we're getting pretty far in this battle.

Having now read most of the article, and having my only real image of the Supreme Court prior to this being their depiction on Boston Legal, I can honestly say they were depicted pretty damn accurately. I mean, it sounds like an absolute blast to be a Supreme Court Justice.

It seems like they liked our side of the case more, but I guess we won't know for sure until they rule.

I'm still curious as to why this is even an issue with the ESRB in place (which, as we all know, has a higher rate of compliance than any other medium).

All I know is that if we win, I will sing from the fucking rooftops.

I'm not too worried. It looks like we will win and even if we lose how long do they expect this law to stay after our generation who grew up on video games takes over their jobs.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
Register for a free account here