Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

Although we still have a mountain to climb, we at least made it to base camp :D
This is really good for the industry, and has even restored my faith in your justice system, after hearing all the 'horror' stories about it.

My favorite quote from the opinion:

One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in "explo_e" with a "d" (so that it reads "explode") than with an "r" ("explore"). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.

Never before has a smackdown been so eloquent.

That does not surprise me. I expected this. The Supreme Court is the one institution that you can always rely on when it comes to the Constitution.

sneakypenguin:
Wonder what the vote break down was. I'll have to read about it after work.

7 to 2 i believe
anyway
YEAHHHHH!!!! WE WIN

internetzealot1:
Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents' consent.

It scares me more that Justice Thomas doesn't think children have a right to free speech! That was pulled STRAIGHT from the Supreme Court Ruling in question!

Oh, and "Erznoznik" is "Erznoznik v. Jackson-ville, 422 U. S. 205, 212-213 (1975)":

"Minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them."

You heard it right from the Supreme Courts mouth! Kids, when your parents or teachers try to tell you that you don't have right, quote them this!

Finally.

Cropsy91:
Hell to the yes! So there IS some common sense in the world!

I would agree to that.

[Quote]In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they be skewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp.187-189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed.1982).[/quote]

YYYEEEESSSSS! AHAHAHAHAH! Justice Scalia has the same taste in translators I do! I have the same sense of literary taste as a Supreme Court Justice, WOOT!


Kudos that common sense prevailed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to play some TF2. Those backs aren't going to stab themselves.

;)

internetzealot1:
Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

I kind of expected it. Some of the conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees -- seem to think free speech only applies to speech they like. It's one of the many reasons I find the whole "activist judge" malarky hilarious -- notice how you never hear that phrase from a liberal, even though both sides could make a pretty good argument about the other side's justices having an activist streak. (The real problem with it is that Supreme Court justices have been "legislating from the bench" as the old saw goes since Marbury V. Madison, all the way back in 1803, and it's been a basic part of the Supreme Court's powers ever since then. Complaining about it is like complaining about the president's veto power -- completely idiotic.)

OT: Score one for the good guys, but it's not like this was an unexpected ruling. Any school child could have told you what the ruling would have been, assuming they had had a civics class at some point -- which is sadly not a given these days.

P.S.: As a liberal, I have to give kudos to Scalia for having read the constitution and actually applying it correctly. These don't have to be partisan issues, and it's a shame that it they so often work out that way.

image

So awesome! We finally got past this stage, we have a SCOTUS decision, now we won't have to deal with bullshit bills like this anymore. I'm not really surprised because that bill is pretty blatantly unconstitutional, but it still feels wonderful for this whole thing to be finally over :D

Lawz:
Ok, I'm from the UK where we have the BBFC rating system and most violent games can only be brought by people over 18, and I'm now really confused as to how it works in the US.

So it's not illegal for retailers to sell R rated games to anyone, but they have the choice to refuse the sale, right? So instead of your elected government being in control (by proxy, whatever) of what content children can access, some random at Gamestop is? Sounds pretty odd to me.

Right retaliers can sell M rated games but store and company policy say the kid either has to be old enough or have an adult there to approve the sale the law california was trying to pass would make it illegal to sell them to minors while this doesnt sound that bad what would happen is if a kid made a fake id or someone just made a mistake the store would have to pay a fine for selling to underage kids so most stores would stop selling m rated games just to eliminate all chances of being fined and game companies would either have to stop making m rated games or just go out of business.

Frehls:

While many parents want the government to raise their children for them...

That is what I find troubling about this country. More and more people are believing in the hair-brained idea that the government should help out with everything in life and watch out for everything and run everything, because people these days seem to think these easy everyday tasks of responsibility are beneath them.

This is the troubling mentality of more an more people:

Why should I have to do the homework to find a healthcare provider that works for me? The government should do it all for me and keep things impossibly cheap.(Oblivious to the fact that it will run even the great doctors out of business.)

I would like to see more people take part in community service. So, why not have the government force kids in high school to take part and if they don't they can't graduate.(It can't possibly be against free will and forcing people to be charitable, oh wait, it is.)

And the icing on the crazy cake: I shouldn't have to watch out for what my kid buys and plays, it is the fault of the industry for making such games.(Ignoring the fact that the industry rates the games so that parents can see what the game is like and knows that it isn't for little 9 year-old Timmy. But I guess the industry is foolish that it thinks parents will be at least a small bit responsible and regulate what their kids play.)

Owyn_Merrilin:

internetzealot1:
Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

I kind of expected it. Some of the conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees -- seem to think free speech only applies to speech they like. It's one of the many reasons I find the whole "activist judge" malarky hilarious -- notice how you never hear that phrase from a liberal, even though both sides could make a pretty good argument about the other side's justices having an activist streak. (The real problem with it is that Supreme Court justices have been "legislating from the bench" as the old saw goes since Marbury V. Madison, all the way back in 1803, and it's been a basic part of the Supreme Court's powers ever since then. Complaining about it is like complaining about the president's veto power -- completely idiotic.)

OT: Score one for the good guys, but it's not like this was an unexpected ruling. Any school child could have told you what the ruling would have been, assuming they had had a civics class at some point -- which is sadly not a given these days.

P.S.: As a liberal, I have to give kudos to Scalia for having read the constitution and actually applying it correctly. These don't have to be partisan issues, and it's a shame that it they so often work out that way.

You claim it doesn't have to be a partisan issue, yet take a side swipe at "conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees", even though the all of W's appointees agreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia. If you want to disparage Clinton and Poppy, go for it. But at least have the honesty to point out that W's appointees (Roberts and Alito) agreed with your opinion.

Victory!

image

It's good to see that the Supreme Court in America understand that an actor who has portrayed video violence and abandoned kids is not the best person to be talking about banning violence and controlling children.

Oh, and that Games can be Art as well.

image

I believe this sums it up.

TomInKorea:

Owyn_Merrilin:

internetzealot1:
Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

I kind of expected it. Some of the conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees -- seem to think free speech only applies to speech they like. It's one of the many reasons I find the whole "activist judge" malarky hilarious -- notice how you never hear that phrase from a liberal, even though both sides could make a pretty good argument about the other side's justices having an activist streak. (The real problem with it is that Supreme Court justices have been "legislating from the bench" as the old saw goes since Marbury V. Madison, all the way back in 1803, and it's been a basic part of the Supreme Court's powers ever since then. Complaining about it is like complaining about the president's veto power -- completely idiotic.)

OT: Score one for the good guys, but it's not like this was an unexpected ruling. Any school child could have told you what the ruling would have been, assuming they had had a civics class at some point -- which is sadly not a given these days.

P.S.: As a liberal, I have to give kudos to Scalia for having read the constitution and actually applying it correctly. These don't have to be partisan issues, and it's a shame that it they so often work out that way.

You claim it doesn't have to be a partisan issue, yet take a side swipe at "conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees", even though the all of W's appointees agreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia. If you want to disparage Clinton and Poppy, go for it. But at least have the honesty to point out that W's appointees (Roberts and Alito) agreed with your opinion.

Actually, they wrote a concurring opinion that changed the reasoning into something that would have left the industry wide open for another law, one that applied exclusively to videogames; if that had been the majority opinion, it would have been just as bad as a loss.

Roganzar:
So there is Justice and common sense at that level of government.
You know, I was actually a little worried about which way this would go.
Also, 7-2 ruling really leaves no question about the legal status of this ruling.

Agreed, I too was worried that everyone who wasn't a Gamer (especially in politics) looked down on gaming but, I was glad to be wrong in this case! Whew, that was worrisome.

OT:

"We had hoped that we would see this decision, and it's been a long time coming. That being said, there will probably be one or two legislators who attempt to test these new parameters, and the ECA will continue to fight for the rights of entertainment consumers."

To me, these two Groups are heroes to us all along with those who stood up for video games. If by any chance that this law became real then I would wonder how did we get the politicians of today, but that seems to not be the case. Let's celebrate everyone!! W00T!

Since video games are considered art now. Art is thus freedom of speech. I expected this to be knocked down. The system did one right. Least from everything I think I remember from the last while works to be.

rembrandtqeinstein:

Falseprophet:
I have problems with that policy, because I think you can either let an industry self-regulate, or impose government regulation with an appeal process. You might have issues with one or the other, but they both have legitimate points on their side.

I think you are overlooking the best possible option. Let individuals make decisions for themselves.

This, this, a billion times this. Laws and regulations that declare X, Y, and Z to be 'unwholesome' are bullshit. Man has a functional brain with the capacity to weigh good and evil and decide; trust in that for what they spend 60 bucks at a time for and do in their spare time.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

That is all.

Freedom of expression protected, videogames accepted by the US Supreme Court as a legitimate form of art.

Quite simply, FUCK YEAH

coldasicedrummer:
But...wouldn't said ban have (at least on paper) led to a severe reduction in the amount of obnoxious 15 year olds that help make online MP games a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Isn't this a phyrric victory? Perhaps I'm misguided...

Nah. Since most stores are actually quite good at policing this stuff themselves, it means that parents are the ones buying those obnoxious kids those games (and then letting them be obnoxious online), and the law explicitly does not stop that, so while the industry suffers, those kids would have continued to get their parents to buy them the latest M-rated online shooter gorefest.

One small step for gaming, one giant leap for mankind.

Obviously the only reasonable and just result.

Freedom of Expression does not ebb and flow with the medium chosen to exert it. The bile seeping from the unfounded fears of the petty and backwards to whom everything new and unfamiliar is a danger until proven otherwise has thankfully been struck down.

Lawz:
Ok, I'm from the UK where we have the BBFC rating system and most violent games can only be brought by people over 18, and I'm now really confused as to how it works in the US.

So it's not illegal for retailers to sell R rated games to anyone, but they have the choice to refuse the sale, right? So instead of your elected government being in control (by proxy, whatever) of what content children can access, some random at Gamestop is? Sounds pretty odd to me.

I am also from the UK and in both Britain and America it is, and always has been, THE PARENTS who control what their children have access to and are ultimately responsible for that.

Look it doesn't matter what the law says, if mum says no COD then no COD. If she doesn't care then she will BUY THE GAME FOR THE KID regardless of point-of-sale laws! Kids don't have a lot of money and depend on their parents to buy games and living with their parents with no right to privacy they can't exactly play them without their parents noticing.

Parents need to stop expecting the government to do their job for them. Mainly because THEY ARE BAD at it.

Parents can use discretion and make maturity judgements depending on their beliefs and circumstances that the law and censorship boards cannot.

In the famous words of Mr. C. Montgomery Burns:


This is the greatest legal victory video games could've hoped for. Officially getting protection under the 1st Amendment will stop all those nay-sayers who want to ban or censor games "for the sake of the children". For those that disagree with the SCOTUS decision, I have a few choice phrases I wish to say, but can be quickly and inoffensively summed up with:

poiuppx:

rembrandtqeinstein:

Falseprophet:
I have problems with that policy, because I think you can either let an industry self-regulate, or impose government regulation with an appeal process. You might have issues with one or the other, but they both have legitimate points on their side.

I think you are overlooking the best possible option. Let individuals make decisions for themselves.

This, this, a billion times this. Laws and regulations that declare X, Y, and Z to be 'unwholesome' are bullshit. Man has a functional brain with the capacity to weigh good and evil and decide; trust in that for what they spend 60 bucks at a time for and do in their spare time.

Your missing one important point. Individuals are dumb. Choices they make are not always the best which is why they are minors and the laws protect them - they have no real idea whats right or wrong when it comes to stuff. Otherwise why not let 12 year olds buy guns. Why not make smoking, alcohol and drugs legal for everyone regardless of age. Lets get rid of all laws about drunk driving and murder, rape and pedophilia. Let the individual chose what they want to say and do and damn everyone else. Thing is an individuals right to something can automatically invalidate someone else right against it. Games are not art, and i wish people would not bring that up as a reason. Yes something can be appealing to the eye, doesnt make it art. It just means you like the look of it. Movies and games are rated for a reason, especially as games are getting more graphic of late. LA Noire had naked dead woman in it.....would you allow a child to play that? Or look at some of the sick stuff online like tubgirl (dont look it up) as ok? I agree some kids are mature for there years and know the difference between what is real and what is fake. Other kids dont. The laws are in place, shops shouldnt sell a mature game to kids without proof of age, outside the shop it is not there responsibility and is up to the parents. Kids will get hold of the games regardless, same with drugs, alcohal and cigerettes. Doesnt mean you should stop the laws they can limit this. Nor should people come out with the "rights act" bollocks as a reason as that act has been abused as much as the Human Rights Act has been abused. Its been taken out of context by people that just want what they want.

Californiaaa.... You're starting to redeem yourself there...
...
...
So don't blow it.

All

Hell

Can't stop us now!

Oh, only mildly annoying captcha, how I have missed thee.

sneakypenguin:
Wonder what the vote break down was. I'll have to read about it after work.

...pretty close to exactly what you would guess.

internetzealot1:
Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

Not surprised in the slightest; in fact, they were the reason I was worried (other than the esteemed Clarence "dick joke" Thomas). Scalia can be a stuffy old fart but he does side with reason and freedom some times. If memory serves, he also sided with Larry Flynt. That's a pretty big deal, considering the time and Flynt's profession.

Alito and Roberts = Bush appointees, and they have consistently voted in ways that have pleased Dubya ever since they took office. Surprised I am not.

HELL YEAH!

Games protected under the first amendment, next up art form!

"Good News Everyone!"

Bonus points if it's read with that voice in your head.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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