As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Them thar [VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES] in California

DistramDistram __BANNED USERS regular
edited November 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
I'm not sure if there's a thread for this or not - I looked but didn't find one - but apparently the Supreme Court reviewed a California law banning the sale of violent games to minors.

Here's a link an Ars Technica article about it: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/11/oral-arguments-in-violent-game-case-focus-on-nature-of-violence.ars

What do you all think about this law? I think it's a completely impotent gesture, made to excuse the avoidance of, by government, to do actual real things to enhance the lives of young people, under the guise of "protecting the children."

Also, fun fact, all the talking heads on a few different talk radio shows I listen to on the way to work, as well as a few newscasters, keep citing a game, the title of which they never mention (because they obviously don't know it, or what they are talking about), that allows the player to chop a person's head off and urinate on them, as a reason why this law is needed. I find it hilarious that people are using Postal 2 as a reason why video games shouldn't be sold to minors.

Distram on
«1345

Posts

  • Options
    BuhamutZeoBuhamutZeo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Impossible to enforce. Period. Anything a parent has to actually worry about is on the internet and the law would do ZERO to stop that. Hell, if Microsoft lost their minds they could upload horrible Baby Murder games right to you and the law wouldn't have any effect on it. Which, if this law is passed, will be the work-around anyways. They'll just make all HDs cheap as hell and make every game directly down-loadable. Little Timmy can play GTA6 all he likes without Uncle Sam being able to do some Invasive Parenting of its own.

    BuhamutZeo on
    MyBanner.jpg
    BRAWL: 1160-9686-9416
  • Options
    DistramDistram __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2010
    BuhamutZeo wrote: »
    Impossible to enforce. Period. Anything a parent has to actually worry about is on the internet and the law would do ZERO to stop that. Hell, if Microsoft lost their minds they could upload horrible Baby Murder games right to you and the law wouldn't have any effect on it. Which, if this law is passed, will be the work-around anyways. They'll just make all HDs cheap as hell and make every game directly down-loadable. Little Timmy can play GTA6 all he likes without Uncle Sam being able to do some Invasive Parenting of its own.

    I agree completely. All a law like this would do is further along digital distribution.

    Distram on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I read about the opening day of SCOUTS' hearing on this via Kotaku, and I've gotta say that both sides of the argument (even though I'm on the industry's side) did a terrible job of arguing their position. What needs to be a strong part of the argument is retail outlets regulating this themselves. Even if retail outlets don't follow ESRB ratings based on who they're selling to 100%, the fact that at least some do is enough that they're capable of it. This is a form of regulation that doesn't need to happen because there are tools in place that can perform that regulation already.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Can someone summarize for me what this thing is actually about?

    Because like, enforcing age restrictions in the system I kind of agree with.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I liked how Kagan (I think it was Kagan) asked the defense if the law would apply if, say, the character being "maimed or tortured" was a Vulcan.

    The lawyer said no, because it only applies to depictions of human beings.

    SPACE RACISM!

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Can someone summarize for me what this thing is actually about?

    Because like, enforcing age restrictions in the system I kind of agree with.

    It's about splitting video games from any other existing media and arbitrary enforcing vague and arbitrary violence guidelines.
    I have no idea why the SCOTUS accepted to hear this, probably to end the silly once and for all.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited November 2010
    RPS has an article with some choice quotes.
    Justice Scalia: What’s a deviant violent video games? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
    Morazzini: Yes, your honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
    Justice Scalia: There are established norms of violence? … Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
    Morazzini: Agreed, your honor. But the level of violence ….
    Justice Scalia: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them too?
    Morazzini: Not at all, your honor.

    Justice Kagan: Well, do you actually have studies that show that video games are more harmful to minors than movies are?
    Morazzini: Well, in the record, your honor, I believe it’s the Gentile and Gentile study regarding violent video games as exemplary teachers.
    Justice Kagan: Suppose a new study suggested that movies were just as violent. Then, presumably, California could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games?

    Justice Sotomayor: One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, outlaw Bugs Bunny?
    Morazzini: No.

    Justice Scalia: That same argument could have been made when movies first came out. They could have said, oh, we’ve had violence in Grimm’s fairy tales, but we’ve never had it live on the screen. I mean, every time there’s a new technology, you can make that argument.

    Justice Sotomayor: Could you get rid of rap music? Have you heard some of the lyrics of some of the rap music, some of the original violent songs that have been sung about killing people and other violence directed to them?

    Feels like some of the justices had a good time. :P

    Echo on
  • Options
    DistramDistram __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2010
    The reasoning behind the argument for a national law enforcing the restriction of video game sales to minors is disproved by statistical evidence that the crime rate has declined as video game sales have risen. If violent games made people more violent, the opposite would be true.

    Chart: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/04/gaming-real-vio/

    Article about chart: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/12/comparing-violent-crime-to-violent-game-releases

    Distram on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    Pony on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I was going to bash this article and this graph for 10 different kinds of stupid, but it seems they say black on white that it doesn't prove shit. So I suggest you don't say it too.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    General_WinGeneral_Win Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Distram wrote: »
    The reasoning behind the argument for a national law enforcing the restriction of video game sales to minors is disproved by statistical evidence that the crime rate has declined as video game sales have risen. If violent games made people more violent, the opposite would be true.

    Chart: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/04/gaming-real-vio/

    Article about chart: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/12/comparing-violent-crime-to-violent-game-releases

    Gangsta boy 1: Yo dude you want to go commit some violent crimes?

    Gangsta boy 2: Dude I totally can't, seriously, my guild totally needs me.

    General_Win on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited November 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    you know, say what you will about Scalia (and I will say plenty), he's a sharp dude.

    I like how these best-of transcripts never feature Clarence Thomas, though. Ever. That guy is exquisitely useless.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    "But what about X?" is pretty much the easiest defense against any kind of extreme regulation/criminalization of entertainment media.

    "Why is it okay in this medium, but not in this one?" is an argument few are able to really make a good defense against.

    Scalia brought up that point, and it's an important one, because it points out how video games are just the current "moral panic" no different from how people have flipped out over every new form of entertainment

    christ

    just imagine how the Helen Lovejoys of the world are gonna flip their shit when they see kids playin' them there violent video games via gesture technology like the Kinect

    Pony on
  • Options
    galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    Say what you will about his whole legal mindframe

    (and it is asinine sometimes)

    but Scalia can be fucking funny. Case in point:
    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. It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice.

    galenblade on
    linksig.jpg
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    "But what about X?" is pretty much the easiest defense against any kind of extreme regulation/criminalization of entertainment media.

    "Why is it okay in this medium, but not in this one?" is an argument few are able to really make a good defense against.

    Yeah, too bad the ESA was off on some other stupid argument about whether games were actually harmful or not.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about the distinction between books and movies may be that in these video games the child is not sitting there passively watching something; the child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming. And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development.

    MR. SMITH: Well, Your Honor, it might. The State of California has not marshaled a shred of evidence to suggest it's true.

    ... I guess I can imagine a world in which expression could transform 75 percent of the people who experience it into murderers. That's clearly not the way the human mind works. Here the reality is quite the opposite. Dr. Anderson testified in the Illinois trial, which is in the record, that the vast majority of people playing the games will grow up and be just fine. And in fact, he acknowledged that the effects of these games are not one whit different from watching cartoons on television or reading violent passages in the Bible or looking at a picture of a gun.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: You really don't want to argue the case on that ground. I gather you don't believe that the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except those that make sense."

    ESA ought to be arguing on First Amendment grounds, not leaving themselves open to potential government restrictions in the event that some future study is released by Focus on the Family or whoever saying that video games actually are significantly more harmful than other forms of speech.

    I expect the Supremes to strike the CA law, but it'll be on their own because ESA didn't help at all. The ease with which they've defeated other state anti-gaming laws - CA is really the only state to keep fighting after initial losses - may have made them a bit fat and lazy.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    PeenPeen Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Honestly I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Nobody's trying to restrict the content of games, only who can buy them. There are age restrictions in other forms of media and this is basically the same thing, so I don't get the First Amendment argument. I mean you guys honestly have a problem with not allowing an 8 year old to walk into a store and buy Madworld?

    Peen on
  • Options
    TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Peen wrote: »
    Honestly I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Nobody's trying to restrict the content of games, only who can buy them. There are age restrictions in other forms of media and this is basically the same thing, so I don't get the First Amendment argument. I mean you guys honestly have a problem with not allowing an 8 year old to walk into a store and buy Madworld?

    Those age restrictions are all voluntarily enforced by the media companies (MPAA and theatres etc,) just like the current video game age restrictions are. In fact, it is harder for a minor to buy an M-rated game than to get into an R rated movie.
    Found the article to back that claim.
    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/harder-for-kids-to-buy-m-rated-video-game-than-see-r-rated-movie.ars

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    GanluanGanluan Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The 'big deal' is that this should not be enforced by the government, period. You're in dangerous territory when you give any government the right to decide what is "appropriate" material.

    Ganluan on
  • Options
    ArtoriaArtoria Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Peen wrote: »
    Honestly I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Nobody's trying to restrict the content of games, only who can buy them. There are age restrictions in other forms of media and this is basically the same thing, so I don't get the First Amendment argument. I mean you guys honestly have a problem with not allowing an 8 year old to walk into a store and buy Madworld?

    Also the problem becomes that if this law is passed then places such as Wal-mart and Best Buy will not carry M rated games at all to avoid running afoul for the CA law. since publishers want their product to be sold to the widest audience possible they will curtail their content to those restrictions creating a de-facto censorship.

    this is not an area the government should be in at all. people should be able to choose what games, music, movies, radio etc.. that they want to consume.

    Artoria on
  • Options
    FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Scalia is just barely not openly mocking this guy.

    It's incredibly funny.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    also the whole "Vulcan argument" is really important when it comes to video games.

    quick

    think of how many video games you play where you are actually inflicting violence upon characters in the game who are stated explicitly to be human beings?

    war games like Call of Duty immediately spring to my mind, but outside of those the vast majority of video games have you killing robots, mutants, zombies, aliens, etc.

    pass a law like this on the foundation of depictions of violence against humans and you get into an incredibly tricky territory of defining what is a fictional representation of a human being and what isn't

    bravo to Justice Kagan for being the only one to bring up that argument because while it might be less important for movies, for video games it is an extremely important question to be asking

    Pony on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    you know, say what you will about Scalia (and I will say plenty), he's a sharp dude.

    I like how these best-of transcripts never feature Clarence Thomas, though. Ever. That guy is exquisitely useless.

    Not to mention unethical. It's pretty clear now that his lack of ethics is why Citizens United won.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    like, here's an example

    Left 4 Dead 2. The violence in L4D2 is graphic as fuck. So graphic that I was actually a little shocked by it when I started playing it, and I've got prenatal exposure to video games, man.

    In L4D2 there are hundreds of different ways you can rip bodies open with gunfire, machete slashes, etc. The violence is over-the-top and not exactly realistic of real gunshot wounds (shooting someone in the chest with burst from an M16 is not going to rip the flesh off exposing their ribcage like it does here) but the actual level of violence is pretty nuts.

    Now, all this violence is inflicted on the "Infected", L4D's zombies. The zombies of the L4D "universe" are explicitly stated to be not undead, but living human beings with a virus that has mutated them into violent crazy people (and in the case of the Special Infected, hulking monsters or whatever)

    All the Infected are visibly distinct looking from a normal human being. Un-naturally pale skin, glowing (or more accurately, light-reflective) eyes, etc.

    But in terms of behavior, apparel, and other appearance factors are no different than crazy people running at you, unarmed, trying to beat you up. The Infected don't even rip, tear, and bite like zombies in other media, they punch and kick like a deranged person trying to strike you.

    Under the proposed law, would they be considered human for the purposes of classifying L4D2 as containing graphic depictions of violence against humans? If so, why so, and if not, why not?

    These become important questions with a law like what is proposed here.

    Pony on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    also the whole "Vulcan argument" is really important when it comes to video games.

    quick

    think of how many video games you play where you are actually inflicting violence upon characters in the game who are stated explicitly to be human beings?

    war games like Call of Duty immediately spring to my mind, but outside of those the vast majority of video games have you killing robots, mutants, zombies, aliens, etc.

    pass a law like this on the foundation of depictions of violence against humans and you get into an incredibly tricky territory of defining what is a fictional representation of a human being and what isn't

    bravo to Justice Kagan for being the only one to bring up that argument because while it might be less important for movies, for video games it is an extremely important question to be asking

    Yeah, that was an extremely astute catch. Isn't there some country where video game blood has to be colored green or something? I forget, or I might have just made that up.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    also the whole "Vulcan argument" is really important when it comes to video games.

    quick

    think of how many video games you play where you are actually inflicting violence upon characters in the game who are stated explicitly to be human beings?

    war games like Call of Duty immediately spring to my mind, but outside of those the vast majority of video games have you killing robots, mutants, zombies, aliens, etc.

    pass a law like this on the foundation of depictions of violence against humans and you get into an incredibly tricky territory of defining what is a fictional representation of a human being and what isn't

    bravo to Justice Kagan for being the only one to bring up that argument because while it might be less important for movies, for video games it is an extremely important question to be asking

    Yeah, that was an extremely astute catch. Isn't there some country where video game blood has to be colored green or something? I forget, or I might have just made that up.

    Germany.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Judging by the quotes from those justices I'm almost certain SCOTUS took up the case just to say "This is fucking unconstitutional as we have told you a thousand times before. Oh, video games are different? No, they aren't. You should have learned that from the 11 cases before yours. Stop it."
    pun intended

    Tomanta on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Pony wrote: »
    also the whole "Vulcan argument" is really important when it comes to video games.

    quick

    think of how many video games you play where you are actually inflicting violence upon characters in the game who are stated explicitly to be human beings?

    war games like Call of Duty immediately spring to my mind, but outside of those the vast majority of video games have you killing robots, mutants, zombies, aliens, etc.

    pass a law like this on the foundation of depictions of violence against humans and you get into an incredibly tricky territory of defining what is a fictional representation of a human being and what isn't

    bravo to Justice Kagan for being the only one to bring up that argument because while it might be less important for movies, for video games it is an extremely important question to be asking

    Thing is, I don't recall CoD ever explicitly saying that the textured polygons you're fake-shooting at are human beings. The bad guys in those games don't look any more realistic than real-life robots do today. Half of them vanish into thin air 20 seconds after you shoot them, human beings don't do that.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    you know, say what you will about Scalia (and I will say plenty), he's a sharp dude.

    I like how these best-of transcripts never feature Clarence Thomas, though. Ever. That guy is exquisitely useless.

    From what I understand, he has never actually asked a question.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    They call them soldiers or Nazis or insurgents or whatever, which are invariably human (except for Hitler's robot guard). But that's part of the point; you'd have to legislate how close something can appear to be human without actually being human, how clear you have to make it to the player that they aren't human, etc. etc. Wayyy too vague to be enforceable.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    DistramDistram __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I was going to bash this article and this graph for 10 different kinds of stupid, but it seems they say black on white that it doesn't prove shit. So I suggest you don't say it too.

    Another chart/article, then: http://techliberation.com/2010/02/09/violent-video-games-youth-violence-what-does-real-world-evidence-suggest/

    Distram on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    oh man

    scalia busted some balls there

    you know, say what you will about Scalia (and I will say plenty), he's a sharp dude.

    I like how these best-of transcripts never feature Clarence Thomas, though. Ever. That guy is exquisitely useless.

    From what I understand, he has never actually asked a question.

    He's basically what he hates the most - a token, put on SCOTUS because he was a conservative of the right color.

    The man is an Uncle Ruckus.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Odd that his wife finds it so difficult to shut up.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    "But what about X?" is pretty much the easiest defense against any kind of extreme regulation/criminalization of entertainment media.

    "Why is it okay in this medium, but not in this one?" is an argument few are able to really make a good defense against.

    Yeah, too bad the ESA was off on some other stupid argument about whether games were actually harmful or not.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about the distinction between books and movies may be that in these video games the child is not sitting there passively watching something; the child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming. And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development.

    MR. SMITH: Well, Your Honor, it might. The State of California has not marshaled a shred of evidence to suggest it's true.

    ... I guess I can imagine a world in which expression could transform 75 percent of the people who experience it into murderers. That's clearly not the way the human mind works. Here the reality is quite the opposite. Dr. Anderson testified in the Illinois trial, which is in the record, that the vast majority of people playing the games will grow up and be just fine. And in fact, he acknowledged that the effects of these games are not one whit different from watching cartoons on television or reading violent passages in the Bible or looking at a picture of a gun.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: You really don't want to argue the case on that ground. I gather you don't believe that the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except those that make sense."

    ESA ought to be arguing on First Amendment grounds, not leaving themselves open to potential government restrictions in the event that some future study is released by Focus on the Family or whoever saying that video games actually are significantly more harmful than other forms of speech.

    I expect the Supremes to strike the CA law, but it'll be on their own because ESA didn't help at all. The ease with which they've defeated other state anti-gaming laws - CA is really the only state to keep fighting after initial losses - may have made them a bit fat and lazy.

    Actually, they have to make these arguments to prove that First Amendment grounds are applicable. California is essentially trying to put video games on the same ground as pornography based on the "harm" it does to children.

    The ESA is making the right arguments, though perhaps not as smoothly as they should have.

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    DistramDistram __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2010
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    "But what about X?" is pretty much the easiest defense against any kind of extreme regulation/criminalization of entertainment media.

    "Why is it okay in this medium, but not in this one?" is an argument few are able to really make a good defense against.

    Yeah, too bad the ESA was off on some other stupid argument about whether games were actually harmful or not.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about the distinction between books and movies may be that in these video games the child is not sitting there passively watching something; the child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming. And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development.

    MR. SMITH: Well, Your Honor, it might. The State of California has not marshaled a shred of evidence to suggest it's true.

    ... I guess I can imagine a world in which expression could transform 75 percent of the people who experience it into murderers. That's clearly not the way the human mind works. Here the reality is quite the opposite. Dr. Anderson testified in the Illinois trial, which is in the record, that the vast majority of people playing the games will grow up and be just fine. And in fact, he acknowledged that the effects of these games are not one whit different from watching cartoons on television or reading violent passages in the Bible or looking at a picture of a gun.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: You really don't want to argue the case on that ground. I gather you don't believe that the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except those that make sense."

    ESA ought to be arguing on First Amendment grounds, not leaving themselves open to potential government restrictions in the event that some future study is released by Focus on the Family or whoever saying that video games actually are significantly more harmful than other forms of speech.

    I expect the Supremes to strike the CA law, but it'll be on their own because ESA didn't help at all. The ease with which they've defeated other state anti-gaming laws - CA is really the only state to keep fighting after initial losses - may have made them a bit fat and lazy.

    Actually, they have to make these arguments to prove that First Amendment grounds are applicable. California is essentially trying to put video games on the same ground as pornography based on the "harm" it does to children.

    The ESA is making the right arguments, though perhaps not as smoothly as they should have.

    A quick google search can prove it does no harm: http://techliberation.com/2010/02/09...dence-suggest/

    Distram on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Pornography didn't lose its first amendment protection unilaterally, rather, there is an understanding that as long as they don't make a fuss and keep it only in certain places, they won't get nailed on prostitution charges - as I understand it

    If all of the sudden there was a big first amendment push for porno, they'd probably win, but then they wouldn't be able to legally make anything involving more than one person

    override367 on
  • Options
    LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    RPS has an article with some choice quotes.
    Justice Scalia: What’s a deviant violent video games? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
    Morazzini: Yes, your honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
    Justice Scalia: There are established norms of violence? … Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
    Morazzini: Agreed, your honor. But the level of violence ….
    Justice Scalia: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them too?
    Morazzini: Not at all, your honor.

    Justice Kagan: Well, do you actually have studies that show that video games are more harmful to minors than movies are?
    Morazzini: Well, in the record, your honor, I believe it’s the Gentile and Gentile study regarding violent video games as exemplary teachers.
    Justice Kagan: Suppose a new study suggested that movies were just as violent. Then, presumably, California could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games?

    Justice Sotomayor: One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, outlaw Bugs Bunny?
    Morazzini: No.

    Justice Scalia: That same argument could have been made when movies first came out. They could have said, oh, we’ve had violence in Grimm’s fairy tales, but we’ve never had it live on the screen. I mean, every time there’s a new technology, you can make that argument.

    Justice Sotomayor: Could you get rid of rap music? Have you heard some of the lyrics of some of the rap music, some of the original violent songs that have been sung about killing people and other violence directed to them?

    Feels like some of the justices had a good time. :P

    Now I have to rethink my policy of universally despising Scalia.

    Damn you Scalia, damn you

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Justice Kagan: Do you think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?
    Morazzini: I believe it is a candidate. But I haven’t played the game and been exposed to it sufficiently to judge for myself.
    Justice Kagan: I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing [it].
    Justice Scalia: I don’t know what she’s talking about.
    Holy shit that is hilarious.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    also the whole "Vulcan argument" is really important when it comes to video games.

    quick

    think of how many video games you play where you are actually inflicting violence upon characters in the game who are stated explicitly to be human beings?

    war games like Call of Duty immediately spring to my mind, but outside of those the vast majority of video games have you killing robots, mutants, zombies, aliens, etc.

    pass a law like this on the foundation of depictions of violence against humans and you get into an incredibly tricky territory of defining what is a fictional representation of a human being and what isn't

    bravo to Justice Kagan for being the only one to bring up that argument because while it might be less important for movies, for video games it is an extremely important question to be asking

    Yeah, that was an extremely astute catch. Isn't there some country where video game blood has to be colored green or something? I forget, or I might have just made that up.

    Germany.

    Germany has pretty silly video game laws

    override367 on
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I don't like the federal government playing the role of parent. We have enough of that shit here in Washington.

    Slider on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    I read about the opening day of SCOUTS' hearing on this via Kotaku, and I've gotta say that both sides of the argument (even though I'm on the industry's side) did a terrible job of arguing their position. What needs to be a strong part of the argument is retail outlets regulating this themselves. Even if retail outlets don't follow ESRB ratings based on who they're selling to 100%, the fact that at least some do is enough that they're capable of it. This is a form of regulation that doesn't need to happen because there are tools in place that can perform that regulation already.

    The thing is, it's being argued on 1st Amendment grounds. "We'll sensor ourselves" is not a winning argument.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
Sign In or Register to comment.