Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Supreme Court: Video Games are Free Speech

DoctorArchDoctorArch CurmudgeonRegistered User regular
edited June 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
Linky:
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the video game industry and retailers in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association). The full opinion can be found is here. According to Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion: "the act forbidding sale or rental of violent games to minors does not comport with the 1st Amendment." Alito concurred with the judgment, joined by the Chief Justice. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissent, in an opinion by Thomas - according to SCOTUSBlog. [DoctorArch ninja edit: This is incorrect, Thomas and Breyer both filed dissenting opinions, Breyer did not join Thomas's opinion]

The court had to decide if a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the EMA, saying that the law violated the First Amendment.

The law was written by California State Senator (D-San Francisco) Leland Yee and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. The law was immediately challenged by the video game industry and retail advocacy groups in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A judge put a permanent injunction on the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional because it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.

Here's the link to the ruling itself (.pdf).

For those who don't know, Scalia is an entertaining writer, so you may get a kick out of reading the opinion yourself. I'll post back after I've combed through it.

DoctorArch on
steam_sig.png
«13

Posts

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as I loathe Scalia I am amused that somewhere in there is a human being with common sense.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Scalia usually sides with big business. The videogame industry is big business. I don't see what's out of character.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    As much as I loathe Scalia I am amused that somewhere in there is a human being with common sense.

    Yeah, the part where he calls out Thomas is pretty funny (footnote 3).

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The obvious ruling, but this court made me pretty nervous. Especially since they waited until the end of the term to release the ruling.

    Also, from the Wired article:
    California, however, argued that minors under 18 have less First Amendment rights than adults. The state told the justices that its lawmakers are “reinforcing parents’ authority to direct the upbringing of children in order to protect their physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development.”

    Conservative groups also weighed in, telling the justices that the measure was constitutional because it facilitated “parental control over the upbringing of their children.”

    Because if there if there is anything parents love it is people telling them how to raise their children.

    camo_sig2.png
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Yeah Thomas tried that reasoning in his dissent and Scalia basically shit all over him. Jesus Thomas is terrible. At least Scalia occasionally writes things that make sense even if I don't agree with them.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Wow. The broken clock is right.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited June 2011
    I was wondering what Thomas's justification for upholding this law was, ordinarily, he's all about keeping the government from regulating stuff. I guess his notion that children are rightless thralls of their parents until they're 18 outweighs his anti-government stance.

    And Scalia... geez, what kind of fancy-pants high school did he go to? We watched movies in class, not read "The Odyssey" and "the Inferno".
    scalia wrote:
    Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.

    That's just, like, your opinion, man...

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Yeah Thomas tried that reasoning in his dissent and Scalia basically shit all over him. Jesus Thomas is terrible. At least Scalia occasionally writes things that make sense even if I don't agree with them.

    The man is an affirmative action hire in the full conservative sense of the term.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Funniest Supreme Court transcript I ever read was about that case of the girl vs. the school where the school performed a strip search on her. It's just so awkawrdly funny to read Supreme Court Justices talking about strip searching a teenager.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Funniest Supreme Court transcript I ever read was about that case of the girl vs. the school where the school performed a strip search on her. It's just so awkawrdly funny to read Supreme Court Justices talking about strip searching a teenager.

    The worst/saddest part about that case was Thomas being the lone dissenter saying basically "Who are judges to second guess school administrators in the best efforts at finding contraband" and "this decision means that every student now knows to hide contraband in their undergarments."

    steam_sig.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I really like Footnote #4
    JUSTICE ALITO accuses us of pronouncing that playing violent video
    games “is not different in ‘kind’ ” from reading violent literature. Post,
    at 2. Well of course it is different in kind, but not in a way that causes
    the provision and viewing of violent video games, unlike the provision
    and reading of books, not to be expressive activity and hence not to
    enjoy First Amendment protection. Reading Dante is unquestionably
    more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.
    But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional
    ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels
    and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy,
    and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny—a question to
    which we devote our attention in Part III, infra. Even if we can see in
    them “nothing of any possible value to society . . . , they are as much
    entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”
    Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948).

    steam_sig.png
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Funniest Supreme Court transcript I ever read was about that case of the girl vs. the school where the school performed a strip search on her. It's just so awkawrdly funny to read Supreme Court Justices talking about strip searching a teenager.

    Not a supreme court case, but this one is awesome. Had to read it as part of a business law course.

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Funniest Supreme Court transcript I ever read was about that case of the girl vs. the school where the school performed a strip search on her. It's just so awkawrdly funny to read Supreme Court Justices talking about strip searching a teenager.

    Not a supreme court case, but this one is awesome. Had to read it as part of a business law course.

    I love this state.

    nunst034.gif

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Footnote 5 wrote:
    5The crusade against comic books was led by a psychiatrist, Frederic Wertham, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “as long asthe crime comic books industry exists in its present forms there are nosecure homes.” Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books): Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, 83d Cong., 2dSess., 84 (1954). Wertham’s objections extended even to Supermancomics, which he described as “particularly injurious to the ethical development of children.” Id., at 86. Wertham’s crusade did convince the New York Legislature to pass a ban on the sale of certain comic books to minors, but it was vetoed by Governor Thomas Dewey on the ground that it was unconstitutional given our opinion in Winters, supra. See People v. Bookcase, Inc., 14 N. Y. 2d 409, 412–413, 201 N. E. 2d 14, 15–16 (1964).

    I want to know how Superman was unethical for children. I guess all that truth, justice and American Way was too much for kids to handle.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I want to know how Superman was unethical for children. I guess all that truth, justice and American Way was too much for kids to handle.

    Illegal alien vigilante in spandex wearing his underwear on the outside.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Hahaha Footnote #7:
    7
    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”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
    prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated
    with common sense, is not a compelling state interes

    steam_sig.png
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Why are all the foot notes cut off?

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Footnote 5 wrote:
    5The crusade against comic books was led by a psychiatrist, Frederic Wertham, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “as long asthe crime comic books industry exists in its present forms there are nosecure homes.” Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books): Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, 83d Cong., 2dSess., 84 (1954). Wertham’s objections extended even to Supermancomics, which he described as “particularly injurious to the ethical development of children.” Id., at 86. Wertham’s crusade did convince the New York Legislature to pass a ban on the sale of certain comic books to minors, but it was vetoed by Governor Thomas Dewey on the ground that it was unconstitutional given our opinion in Winters, supra. See People v. Bookcase, Inc., 14 N. Y. 2d 409, 412–413, 201 N. E. 2d 14, 15–16 (1964).

    I want to know how Superman was unethical for children. I guess all that truth, justice and American Way was too much for kids to handle.

    Having read Wertham's book I can guarantee that he had no idea what he was talking about.

    camo_sig2.png
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    I was wondering what Thomas's justification for upholding this law was, ordinarily, he's all about keeping the government from regulating stuff. I guess his notion that children are rightless thralls of their parents until they're 18 outweighs his anti-government stance.

    And Scalia... geez, what kind of fancy-pants high school did he go to? We watched movies in class, not read "The Odyssey" and "the Inferno".
    scalia wrote:
    Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.

    That's just, like, your opinion, man...

    No Im pretty sure Mortal Kombat and culture are like matter and anti matter.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Why are all the foot notes cut off?

    I'm copy/pasting from the pdf opinion itself. Maybe that's why.

    steam_sig.png
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited June 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    I was wondering what Thomas's justification for upholding this law was, ordinarily, he's all about keeping the government from regulating stuff. I guess his notion that children are rightless thralls of their parents until they're 18 outweighs his anti-government stance.

    And Scalia... geez, what kind of fancy-pants high school did he go to? We watched movies in class, not read "The Odyssey" and "the Inferno".
    scalia wrote:
    Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.

    That's just, like, your opinion, man...

    No Im pretty sure Mortal Kombat and culture are like matter and anti matter.

    Eh, one is an ultraviolent revenge fantasy where you see graphic violence, and the other is a videogame where you can pull someone's spine out. Seems to me to be in the same level...

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Abolish the wage system! Takin' Care of BusinessRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Wait, so doesn't that mean it's illegal to prevent kids from buying pornography or is pornography not free speech?

    I mean, I might be alone in thinking that, but i think parents are those who ought to decide if a kid can or cannot play violent video games, same with what movies they can and can't watch. I mean, I'm pretty sure kids need to be accompanied by an adult if they want to see PG-13 movies, right? Why shouldn't it work more-or-less the same way with video games?

    dxCTBM7.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited June 2011
    The ratings system on movies isn't mandated by the state or enforced by the state. It is an 'industry standard', and 'company policy' agreed upon by the motion picture industry (in an effort to sidestep such legislation). Therefore, the video-game sales standards are very similar system to the one for the movie industry.

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Abolish the wage system! Takin' Care of BusinessRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.

    dxCTBM7.png
  • thepotato232thepotato232 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ...Okay, was Thomas' dissenting opinion really built around the idea that children have no right to speak or be spoken to without expressed approval of their parents, citing Puritan views on Original Sin as basis?

    How are we going to enforce that little gem? No wonder Breyer voted the minority opinion without joining the written dissent.

    Butt inquiries are completely fair game.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.

    It's valuable because it was one of the first major works of literature to be written in the "vulgar tongue" instead of Latin.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Wait, so doesn't that mean it's illegal to prevent kids from buying pornography or is pornography not free speech?

    I mean, I might be alone in thinking that, but i think parents are those who ought to decide if a kid can or cannot play violent video games, same with what movies they can and can't watch. I mean, I'm pretty sure kids need to be accompanied by an adult if they want to see PG-13 movies, right? Why shouldn't it work more-or-less the same way with video games?

    Pornography is "obscene," and obscenity has a very, very narrow exception to First Amendment protections in the U.S. California, in this case, did not try to call video games obscene and base the law upon that classification, probably because they knew they would be laughed out of court as a result.

    And yes, parents are those who ought to decide if a kid can or cannot play violent video games. That has not changed. Previous to the California law, game retailers already made sure that minors could not purchase Mature video games without a parent present. What this law did was criminalize the sale of video games to minors, which is a step to far. The video game rating system in the states is very similar to the movie rating system, in that they are both voluntary, and arose out an acknowledge need for ratings in order to prevent the government from legislating it.

    steam_sig.png
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    dante's version of hell is referenced in modern culture a lot

    sometimes without people realizing that's where it came from

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Zampanov wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    dante's version of hell is referenced in modern culture a lot

    sometimes without people realizing that's where it came from
    The same can be said for the Roman gladiatorial arena, but no one is claiming that as a cultural legacy.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    dante's version of hell is referenced in modern culture a lot

    sometimes without people realizing that's where it came from
    The same can be said for the Roman gladiatorial arena, but no one is claiming that as a cultural legacy.

    I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ...Okay, was Thomas' dissenting opinion really built around the idea that children have no right to speak or be spoken to without expressed approval of their parents, citing Puritan views on Original Sin as basis?

    How are we going to enforce that little gem? No wonder Breyer voted the minority opinion without joining the written dissent.

    I love how he spends most of his opinion espousing the sort of primitive, collectivist religious extremism which characterizes areas and / or times where dirty, ignorant people tried to brainwash and abuse their children in between dying of poxes or TB. If it was a capital crime to disobey your parents (which he cites as a point in his favor), it might be a good idea to pick and choose what you take from that culture, you trash.

    There are few things I despise more than the American Taliban. Coming from a first world country in modern times and being taken in by such irrational and wicked ignorance is a gross moral failure.

  • 21stCentury21stCentury Abolish the wage system! Takin' Care of BusinessRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    Might not be a good metric, but it's the one that's used.

    dxCTBM7.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Zampanov wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The Divine Comedy is more valuable culturally because it was made before the Justices in question came of age.

    I'll let you decide whether or not I'm joking.

    Well, actually, i'd say that it's more valuable culturally because it survived longer than other works from the same time period. Some sort of cultural darwinism, you might say. Works that stay "relevant" in a way, that are studied for longer are more culturally valuable than those which were forgotten.
    That's not a very good metric for determining relevance to our culture. The Divine Comedy is basically relegated to anthropological interest at this point.

    dante's version of hell is referenced in modern culture a lot

    sometimes without people realizing that's where it came from
    The same can be said for the Roman gladiatorial arena, but no one is claiming that as a cultural legacy.

    I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.
    That bits and pieces of something having integrated themselves into our cultural consciousness isn't necessarily a good metric for determining the actual value that that thing has for our culture.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    My God, Thomas is capable of thinking for himself on occasion. Granted, it's not original thought, but baby steps, you know?

    Spoiler:
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    That bits and pieces of something having integrated themselves into our cultural consciousness isn't necessarily a good metric for determining the actual value that that thing has for our culture.

    I dunno I feel like something still being referenced after almost 700 years is a strong vote in favor of it being culturally relevant

    do you have a better metric?

    kravensig.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • ATIRageATIRage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    This actually isn't the resounding victory that I originally thought it was going to be. Only five justices believe that these video games are protected speech requiring government to provide compelling interests that are narrowly tailored and the least restrictive.

    The dangerous part is with Alito and the Chief Justice's concurrence as to the judgment. These two justices found that there was a vagueness issue that resulted in them voting against the law. IE that violent video games was not sufficiently defined to give fair warning and notice of what would violate the law. BUT Alito argues that the notion of obscene material should be expanded beyond the traditional tri partite test that Justice Brennan put forth, and was later adopted in Miller.

    This is problematic for two reasons: This should have been an 8-1 or 9-0 opinion in favor of speech when instead only 5 felt that this was truly protected speech. (Thomas argument should have been the lone dissent. although an argument for parental rights, seems to go beyond the traditional parental rights espoused in that body of legal work, ie pierce v. society of sisters and meyers v. nebraska) Which means that the court is fracturing over the traditional categories of what constitutes UNPROTECTED categories of speech.

    Second, Alito's move to expand the notion of obscenity has gained the Chief Justice's vote. Last year, in Stevens (The animal abuse case aka crush videos) Alito started his movement to expand the ideas of what constitutes obscene material by stating that the movies themselves are harmful and thus fall into obscene material, much like child pornography. In Stevens the Chief Justice declined to side with Alito. Now, it seems that the Chief Justice has moved somewhat towards Alito, signaling an openess to expanding what constitutes obscenity law.

    I'll say more about Thomas when I can get my head around his dissent.

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    dojango wrote: »
    dojango wrote: »
    I was wondering what Thomas's justification for upholding this law was, ordinarily, he's all about keeping the government from regulating stuff. I guess his notion that children are rightless thralls of their parents until they're 18 outweighs his anti-government stance.

    And Scalia... geez, what kind of fancy-pants high school did he go to? We watched movies in class, not read "The Odyssey" and "the Inferno".
    scalia wrote:
    Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.

    That's just, like, your opinion, man...

    No Im pretty sure Mortal Kombat and culture are like matter and anti matter.

    Eh, one is an ultraviolent revenge fantasy where you see graphic violence, and the other is a videogame where you can pull someone's spine out. Seems to me to be in the same level...

    Uh.

    You know what nevermind.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Zampanov wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    That bits and pieces of something having integrated themselves into our cultural consciousness isn't necessarily a good metric for determining the actual value that that thing has for our culture.

    I dunno I feel like something still being referenced after almost 700 years is a strong vote in favor of it being culturally relevant

    do you have a better metric?
    I personally think that trying to gauge the subjective merit of various cultural inputs is pretty silly.

    Because not only is it completely subjective, it's also completely pointless. If we want to protect the first amendment, it doesn't matter what our opinion of the value of any given piece of material is, it basically has to apply to everything. Adding a rider about how one thing is more valuable than another is both arrogant and counterproductive.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.