Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

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

666Chaos:
snip

So...what you're saying is the self-regulation of video games is already working extremely well. So the solution is to spend federal tax dollars to create an agency so that the federal government could censor and regulate it, far more strictly and without being on the same page as developers that the ESRB is?

Idea of the year award right here! Also, such a law gives retailers pause in carrying such games, as they can face heavier fines and litigation and legal penalties if a single employee slips up. With less incentive to carry mature games, there is less incentive for developers to create them. And so video gaming really does become something just for kids, because retailers are too scared to carry anything with any actual content.

So no, you're wrong. It would have an affect if the country with the highest video game sales suddenly made it a federal offense to sell video games with illicit content of any kind to minors.

Magicman10893:
After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Or something like that


GREAT NEWS! All of the planets of the galaxy must be partying as we speak!

What the f-

I don't honestly know what to feel about this. I can't join all the jubilation because...well...it seems to me that even the best game out there equates to a good sci-fi novel. And I hate genre fiction. So good for me is...untouchable.

I mean if I ever have a son, I'd slap him across the head if he was reading the Inferno and say, "That is a pretty damn wicked thing you are doing." If he was playing Dante's Inferno--the distinction being that the author takes prominence before the text--I'd slap him across the head and say, "That's an obligatory slap because--damn that was a breast the game showed me wasn't it." I wouldn't be upset; it would sadden me that he just turned out to be...an ordinary, pubescent kid. I know people interpret media differently, as Scalia said, and I've seen people completely deemphasize the aesthetic work of the Inferno, but the Inferno, however you look at it, is a poem of such immense creativity poets today still have to match its ferocity and deluded prophecy (I'm not aware of any poem preceding it that matches the morbidness of the treatment of the five noble thieves--scary). Dante's Inferno...is a game. I'm not saying games will never match the Inferno in storytelling but right now they don't. I don't understand all of the furor.

Also, when I was 14, I was a stupid kid. As a stupid kid, I made mistakes that I regret; mind you, not life-shattering mistakes, but mistakes we all grimace at when we're older on the premise that we could have done better. Now I'm 17. I think I needed 3 years to collect all of the context that is required to understand the maturity in mature games. I don't think I'm a dumb person. I think I'm pretty unspectacular in how normal I am. Such is my reason that 17 is a good limit.

There just needs to be a restriction; just a small, though clear, barrier minors cannot pass through. Hopefully the rating system holds. And it will hold, as long as concerned parents exist. That's what works for me.

That's pretty cool America, nice going.

Did... did the system just WORK!? This deserves a definite "FUCK YEAH!"

The guys who voted against prohibiting are Supreme Court Justices. They are appointed for life. They are done campaigning. They have pretty much won at law, there is nowhere higher to go. Dont get me wrong, I'm sure politicians notice, but not those people

Hallelujah!
it seems the game industry remembered their flag today

youngnastyman88:
Gamers didn't win today. Know who won? The guys who voted against prohibiting. They won us. They realize that we are the new breed of voters. So are they against prohibiting? Or just a future tactic to gain votes?

The guys who voted against prohibiting are Supreme Court Justices. They are appointed for life. They are done campaigning. They have pretty much won at law, there is nowhere higher to go. Dont get me wrong, I'm sure politicians notice, but not those people

voorhees123:

poiuppx:

rembrandtqeinstein:

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.

No.

Stop.

That is not an excuse for police-state style infringement. That is not an excuse to declare a form of expression invalid. That is not a good arguement for removing the responsibility from the parents to parent, i.e., to nurture, raise, and protect. News flash par excellant; the people who run a government are individuals. The people who protest are individuals. Declaring carte blanche that because people are dumb they need a hand to hold ignores the simple fact that the hand will, ultimately, belong to another dumb person.

We are all idiots in our own way. When we're young, we're idiots because we don't know any better. When we're older, we're idiots precisely because we think we know best. This does not excuse us from personal responsibility; it just means we need to actually use logic and think beyond simplistic gut responses. Raising a kid is hard; it's preparing someone for life, and life is a bit too big to prepare anyone for in just 18 years. But somehow, we've been doing it as a species for a damn long time, and usually in history, the parent is the one who decides how the kid is raised. You'll forgive me if I don't think tossing that system out is a valid response to the horrors of new media.

Oh, and thanks for bringing in games are art AND Rights Act, two things this conversation wasn't even about till you brought them up. And as a sidebar to that door you opened, now thanks to this ruling, First Amendment protection applies in full to games, as if they were film, music, books... y'know, forms of art and expression. So, yeah. We can now officially say that the law is on the side of games are art. But hey, it's still a matter of opinion.

I might be wrong but I think a

Is in order.

I've read some of the decision. Very well written and even almost satirical at times. The court has basically totally torn the arguments to shreds. Well done.

Skorpyo:
Did... did the system just WORK!? This deserves a definite "FUCK YEAH!"

You, along with many others, seem surprised that the Justice system performed so admirably. As a student of the system, let me tell you that it is hardly the slipshod mess that Hollywood and people make it out to be. It's really an elegant system.

Many people look at politicians and associate them and their corruption with the Justice system, which really isn't the case on closer inspection.

Back OT: Which is why I wasn't really surprised by this decision since I trusted in this system to do its job. Many of the Supreme Court Justices, like Scalia, have proven themselves time and again to be smart, able, and wise.

/end Justice Fanboyism

Hmm, while the issues about classification (i.e making games classifications part of the law) honestly doesn't matter in the slightest, the sub-text of "Games are ok too," is. Well done US, you did something smart for once. Now maybe our government will listen.

Newtonyd:

Skorpyo:
Did... did the system just WORK!? This deserves a definite "FUCK YEAH!"

You, along with many others, seem surprised that the Justice system performed so admirably. As a student of the system, let me tell you that it is hardly the slipshod mess that Hollywood and people make it out to be. It's really an elegant system.

Many people look at politicians and associate them and their corruption with the Justice system, which really isn't the case on closer inspection.

Back OT: Which is why I wasn't really surprised by this decision since I trusted in this system to do its job. Many of the Supreme Court Justices, like Scalia, have proven themselves time and again to be smart, able, and wise.

/end Justice Fanboyism

Hopefully you are well read on the efficacy of the system. If you are and your claims hold some water that makes me very happy :) .

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Video games are a medium, an art, and now legally protected by the Constitution. Way to go, Supreme Court.

:D Now all we have to do is hope that nobody attempts to appeal this decision. Actually I kinda want that to happen just so it can be shot down in massive flames.

Glad to hear this story.

deshorty:
:D Now all we have to do is hope that nobody attempts to appeal this decision. Actually I kinda want that to happen just so it can be shot down in massive flames.

Good news, there's no appealing with the Supreme Court.

Yes, we won, it wasn't the glorious victory I was hoping for, but we won.

This calls for a re-dubbing of a classic game.

WOOOOT!

And now parents will even more then before allow their children to play violent games then decry them when those same kids do something stupid.

America:Land of parents not giving a **** since 1970.

We won one battle in a huge war.

Time to bring out the artilery...

In other news, the judges vote was probably swayed by TF2 F2P... Everyone plays that game nao.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEmbOL3AAEs

...That's all I have to say.

This is great news.

Awesome, I'm glad my favorite medium of art is safe, for now at least.

I love how this thread has turned into a celebration, video thread.

If you guys haven't, I would go look at that link to the details. Go down to Alito's decision, and read his second paragraph. Its a thing of beauty. It is correct in so many different ways.

Victory!

Fuck.... Yes.... But only one question, can a 10 Year old go buy a R rated game? Well, either way, we win, so Arnold can go back with some shit and eat it. Common sense wins, YYYAAAAHH!!

Treblaine:

666Chaos:

Treblaine:
This isn't just important for America, this is important for video games acceptance all over the world.

I really wish you guys would stop being so bloody arrogant that you actually think this was going to have an effect on anybody but the US.

FYI, I'm British and have never even visited America.

You cannot deny the importance of America's Bill of Rights on how the world views Freedom of Speech, particularly from how much American media is exported.

I really wish people would stop being so prejudiced against America.

They won't they are having too much fun being complete idiots. Granted so are people here but we don't try to act like one SINGLE nation is the cause of all of our problems.

Why even bother having a rating system?
Why isn't porn free speech as well, by the sounds of this article, all media should be?

I love my games, but I think it should still be regulated properly. The ratings should be enforced, rather than being half-hearted guidelines. This is just going to worsen the reputation of games as parents see their younger children bring home games which are wholly unsuitable for them to possess.

Games would never be "Banned" but the rating system should be in control of the government and retailers should be legally obliged to uphold them.

Saltyk:

Magicman10893:
After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Or something like that

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

Magicman10893:

Saltyk:

Magicman10893:
After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Or something like that

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

We have to disagree on that. I think the First Amendment should be expanded, if anything. Largely, I'd just like to see minors given some more recognition of Free Speech rights.

Trust me, the WBC are the worst trolls in history, but they know their legal rights and what they can get away with. I'd much rather see them abuse their rights than see others denied theirs. At least this way, everyone is given a fair chance.

And before you start, you do NOT have a right to not be offended. If the WBC offends you, good. That means you are a decent human being deep down.

Saltyk:

Magicman10893:

Saltyk:

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Or something like that

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

We have to disagree on that. I think the First Amendment should be expanded, if anything. Largely, I'd just like to see minors given some more recognition of Free Speech rights.

Trust me, the WBC are the worst trolls in history, but they know their legal rights and what they can get away with. I'd much rather see them abuse their rights than see others denied theirs. At least this way, everyone is given a fair chance.

And before you start, you do NOT have a right to not be offended. If the WBC offends you, good. That means you are a decent human being deep down.

I agree that the First Amendment should be expanded upon (minors getting more rights is also an area that I agree with), but in the end there is still a limit to what is acceptable. Letting them abuse their rights is just as bad as being denied rights to me. There needs to be some kind of addition to help prevent abuses like WBC does on a near constant basis.

thePyro_13:
Why even bother having a rating system?
Why isn't porn free speech as well, by the sounds of this article, all media should be?

I love my games, but I think it should still be regulated properly. The ratings should be enforced, rather than being half-hearted guidelines. This is just going to worsen the reputation of games as parents see their younger children bring home games which are wholly unsuitable for them to possess.

Games would never be "Banned" but the rating system should be in control of the government and retailers should be legally obliged to uphold them.

The thing is that the system in place now (as mentioned in the case if you care to read it in full)is 80% effective. Compare that to the LAW governing alcohol sales to the underaged at 82% effective. Having government oversight would only give about a (perhaps) 5% increase in success.

Like it or not the ESRB is one of the most effective rating systems in the United States. And also note that movie ratings are not government enforced either. It's simply that retailers and distributors have set up a system that helps avoid lawsuits from parents who misguidedly buy a game/movie or let their kids buy a game/movie that's too "obscene" for their kids (in their view).

If kids bring home some "M" rated games (that most game store employees would card them for if they look younger than 17) and the parents don't like it, they should take it upon themselves to take the games away.

Had this law passed then any game with "deviant violence against a human image" (the definition of a human image was very broad) would have to be bought by somebody 18+. Which I'll note would include every final fantasy game ever made, super smash brothers games, metroid games, world of warcraft, the entire lego series and many more games that have a rating of "E" or often lower.

What I've just said is nothing new, if you care to read the first 3 pages of this comments section you'll see other similar posts (often with better examples) about this subject.

 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