Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!
The Judiciary (The Best Branch of Government(tm)) ft. Videogames & the 1st Amendment
Posts
As a gamer, I
That being said, I dealt with so many moronic parents that bought their little brats whatever the hell they wanted, regardless of me saying "This game is rated mature for intense violence, sexual themes, nudity, language, drug use, blah blah blah..." Very rarely did a warning from one of us stop a parent from buying a game.
It's like parents today don't want to deal with their kids being cry babies so they give them w.e. they want. Now one of the very first games I ever played was wolfenstein 3-d so my parents didn't really seem to care either... well I did have to take doom 2 back
I'm fine with a law requiring an adult to be there to buy an M-rated game because things wouldn't change much in terms of service around me. However it's not going to fix lazy ignorant parents that don't give a damn about what their kids do.
Nah, I just signed up, I don't really know about many of the cases besides this one and the funeral protesters one so I don't have much to predict
In other news, here is a nice run-down of the arguments the industry will be making against California:
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/10/07/lead-counsel-scotus-violent-games-case-lays-out-arguments
I liked this:
I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo
Also,
We shouldn't be ok with laws that don't do anything and have no point.
Roberts and Ginsburg are neck and neck
Scalia is a close third, but he spends too much time complaining about how "cheap" everyone is playing to be really focused.
Good point
Thomas refuses to buy new maps and will only play on the originals
Alito just continues to petulantly use the needler no matter how far away his opponent is and refuses to listen when you tell him why he's losing
Kennedy just complains about how the pistol will never be as good again
Kennedy gets auto-balanced onto the losing team and his new team starts winning
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/10/18/ptc-compares-game-industry-groups-thugs
Some language in particular caught my eye:
This is an argument that is often raised by those supporting the law, namely that children can't buy other "toxic" materials
I think that it is exceedingly dangerous to the rights the First Amendment secures to analogize any type of speech with toxic materials that have a real, scientifically proven and easily observable physical impact on the human body.
Unlike that decision though, this one deals with something that is far less 'pervasive' in the tv and radio sense. Video games don't just float through the air, entering your home without your acquiescence (the justification for regulating tv and radio). Video games, of the sort being regulated here, cost money and require that a purchaser take some active roll in their acquisition. Video game makers also already mark their games with indicators of their content, be it violent or sexual or whatever, in their own game ratings. That should be enough to distinguish the CA law from it's tv and radio counterpart. Stores should not be required to stand in the place of parents inspecting what is acquired by young kids.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation is a case dealing with broadcasting (on radio) George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV routine where the Court talks about the particular pervasiveness and intrusiveness of broadcasting
As far as the "toxic" question. that just muddies and distracts from the greater issue away from the fact that video games are speech and not some other random good. The sale of couches or beds or chairs are not regulated by congress, therefore video games should be likewise unregulated. People don't play video games while standing up, do they?
alternatively, there was a case against NBC for airing a movie, which supposedly led to the murder of some kid by other kids who said they were emulating the movie they saw on TV. It's a case that is often ignored by the attorneys who argue that violent video games cause kids to lash out in ways like they see in those games. Game Makers can't be held accountable for the actions of the kids who play those games, because those actions are unforeseeable. The game maker isn't telling kids to go out and do that stuff, or instructing them how. In pure speech terms, it is wholly protected by the 1st amendment. Why then would you go after the stores selling the games if you can't go after the producers themselves for the same issue?
Am I supposed to side with Schwarzennegger or this Halpin fuck
Because the first post says that the ninth court of California said that it was protected by the first Amendment, and that Halpin dude's photo makes him look like a douche
Never forget.
protip, do step 2 before step 1
Secret Satan Click This!
You're supposed to side with free expression
So that's Schwarzennegger right
In this case
Never forget.
No, Schwarzennegger = California which made the law in question
Entertainment Merchants Association = the video game industry which challenged the law
The 9th Circuit struck down the law as unconstitutional
The Supreme Court may or may not affirm the 9th Circuit
Here you'd have to be careful of observation bias though. You'll recall all these idiotic parents, but the good parents have already familiarized themselves with the games or play them themselves, so they make informed decisions before they get to the store.
...But then I remember buying Half-Life, it not having a CD-key and then they wouldn't let me exchange it for a box that did until I got my mom over there. Plus I played all those violent video games before we had ratings. I mean, Contra made me go on a vicious killing spree, but I could only move on a two-dimensional plane unless I managed to find my way into a long hallway during my bloodlust.
There was also that time I thought I was a dinosaur and started eating people for health.
Oh okay
I was confused because the wording was weird in the first post
First Amendment rules fuck The Man
Never forget.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/11/supreme_court_questions_ban_on.html
Most of what I'm reading is painting Scalia as the big defender of the medium
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/argument-recap-common-sense-and-violence/
Although, this L.A. Times article paints the picture of a much more split court:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-videos-20101103-6,0,7852742.story
I'll link the oral argument audio when they post it on the SCOTUS site
I feel dirty
Seems pretty good and some funny parts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf
I think the Court really tore into California but the Industry didn't get off lightly either
Just based on this, I'm more optimistic about the outcome then I was when the Court took the case
I don't even
Yea, First Amendment cases are all over the place and screw up all the traditional party lines
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
But I kept getting pissed when they brought up that games weren't considered with worth artistically wise even though movies are. I don't understand that point of view much.
Aka Dashin' thru dese bros
Aka Mr. International
At least one opinion (Roberts most likely) concurring in judgment based on overbreadth/vagueness of this particular statute but wanting to leave door open for a future statute
Dissents that focus on the "children" aspect of the law
If not then I'm hoping for at least: 5-4 to affirm, Kennedy writes the opinion
Duh, cause if its more interactive than putting it in the dvd player and hitting play it isn't art.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html?src=mv
Iowa booted out 3 State Supreme Court judges who joined the unanimous opinion legalizing gay marriage in Iowa
Is Iowa discriminating against homosexuals or merely voting against "activist judges," which is a valid separation of powers argument
While a valid concern might be expressed as to the role of the judiciary in effecting results which are different from the legislative intent, the definition of an "activist judge" is most often one who reminds you that the law is not in accordance with your political opinions. Christine O'Donnell's performance in the Widener School of Law debate is an excellent example of this.
And no, they're not discriminating against homosexuals. They're discriminating against everyone on the basis of sex, applying rigid rules which apply to men and women differently. It was absolutely reasonable for the justices to apply a stricter level of scrutiny to marriage law that differentiates between men and women for the purpose of determining whether certain conduct is lawful, especially in the context of marriage law, which has been historically scrutinized at a higher level than a lot of other activity.
So yeah, this is why voting on judges is a bad idea. Most people are not familiar with the nuances of Constitutional interpretation and they'd rather be vindicated than correct.
I find this story interesting because nobody has any clue what Oklahoma was trying to do this amendment to their constitution
Meaningless laws (or amendments) are stupid and I think this particular one illustrates that the general populace has no idea how the courts work
Also @MrMonroe I agree that bans on gay marriage are really discriminating on the basis of gender (I can't marry a guy because I'm a guy), I'd like to see if a majority of the Court supports that reasoning if that Prop 8 cases gets up there
Lawrence v. Texas + Loving v. Virginia should = bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional
Aka Dashin' thru dese bros
Aka Mr. International
hahahahahahaha