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

13

Posts

  • JAKJAK Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Karl wrote: »
    Edcrab wrote: »
    To my understanding part of the controversy is that in the States, it's not actually against the law to sell age-restricted content to minors (it just tends to go against store policy)

    In the UK it is illegal to supply both games and films to underage consumers, but in the States it currently isn't, so making such a law apply to games alone is pretty skewed

    Shit its actually illegal to do that here? So if a parent buys a game for a child who's underage they're breaking the law?
    Retailers can't sell them to children. Parents can buy them for their kids if they want.

    JAK on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Gamer petition you say

    As a gamer, I

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    When will the governor of California apologize for this?

    20080713totalrecallness.jpg

    JoeUser on
    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I boil kids in a vat of virgin's blood

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • PolecatPolecat What does the polecat say? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    When I worked for G.S. two co-workers got fired for selling m-rated games underage. So at least in our district its relatively strict.

    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.

    Polecat on
    sigpic-1.jpg
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    If you guys want to play along with all the fun this Term:

    http://www.fantasyscotus.net/

    are you in a league?

    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:
    "This was a first amendment case in 1997, and it was essentially true that most Supreme Court justices hadn’t gone on the Internet to see what a web site looked like. So we had to get a monitor hooked up to a computer in the library set up and connected to the Internet to explain to the justices what the Internet was. So I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there was an Xbox in there and we had to show the justices of the Supreme Court an example of a game."

    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    Also,
    Polecat wrote: »
    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.

    We shouldn't be ok with laws that don't do anything and have no point.

    Ubik on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    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.

    MrMonroe on
  • PolecatPolecat What does the polecat say? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    Polecat wrote: »
    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.

    We shouldn't be ok with laws that don't do anything and have no point.

    Good point

    Polecat on
    sigpic-1.jpg
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    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.

    Thomas refuses to buy new maps and will only play on the originals

    Ubik on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    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.

    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

    MrMonroe on
  • PolecatPolecat What does the polecat say? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    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.

    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

    Polecat on
    sigpic-1.jpg
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Polecat wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    I wonder which Justice is the best at Halo

    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.

    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

    Ubik on
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Game Politics today reported on an editorial by the Parents Television Council about the violent video game law.

    http://gamepolitics.com/2010/10/18/ptc-compares-game-industry-groups-thugs

    Some language in particular caught my eye:
    PTC wrote:
    Do children also have a "right" to purchase cigarettes and alcohol? Of course not! . . . why shouldn't parents be able to rest easy knowing their child won’t be able to buy ultra-violent games without their permission?

    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.

    Ubik on
  • SkankPlayaSkankPlaya Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I don't see how this can pass constitutional muster. I still don't agree with the decision about TV and Radio's pervasiveness giving way to content restrictions by the FCC though (I wish I could recall case names and citations at will). It undermines parent's responsibility in supervising their kids.

    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.

    SkankPlaya on
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    SkankPlaya wrote: »
    I don't see how this can pass constitutional muster. I still don't agree with the decision about TV and Radio's pervasiveness giving way to content restrictions by the FCC though (I wish I could recall case names and citations at will).

    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

    Ubik on
  • SkankPlayaSkankPlaya Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Yeah that one. If you've seen the sketch, you'd think it was tame compared to current standards.

    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?

    SkankPlaya on
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    So, wait

    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

    Olivaw on
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
    Never forget.
  • FrankoFranko Sometimes I really wish I had four feet so I could dance with myself to the drumbeat Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Edcrab wrote: »
    When I played Doom and saw those red pixels for the first time my immediate response was to kill myself and everyone around me

    protip, do step 2 before step 1

    Franko on
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Olivaw wrote: »
    So, wait

    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

    You're supposed to side with free expression

    Ubik on
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    Olivaw wrote: »
    So, wait

    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

    You're supposed to side with free expression

    So that's Schwarzennegger right

    In this case

    Olivaw on
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
    Never forget.
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Olivaw wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    Olivaw wrote: »
    So, wait

    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

    You're supposed to side with free expression

    So that's Schwarzennegger right

    In this case

    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

    Ubik on
  • President RexPresident Rex Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Polecat wrote: »
    When I worked for G.S. two co-workers got fired for selling m-rated games underage. So at least in our district its relatively strict.

    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.

    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.

    President Rex on
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    Olivaw wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    Olivaw wrote: »
    So, wait

    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

    You're supposed to side with free expression

    So that's Schwarzennegger right

    In this case

    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

    Oh okay

    I was confused because the wording was weird in the first post

    First Amendment rules fuck The Man

    Olivaw on
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
    Never forget.
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2029095,00.html
    A little before 9 a.m. today, seven protesters — one dressed as Super Mario, complete with mustache — stood outside the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose the California law about to be hotly debated inside.
    The Supreme Court Justices seemed loathe to put a new limit on constitutionally protected speech, but they seemed equally reluctant to say the government could play no role in keeping gruesome games out of children's hands.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/11/supreme_court_questions_ban_on.html
    Justice Antonin Scalia led the aggressive questioning of Zackery P. Morazzini, a deputy California attorney general. Scalia said that violence in literature was at least as old as Grimm's fairy tales and that it has always been understood the First Amendment protects depictions of violence.

    When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned how the California law would be carried out and who would decide whether a video was deemed deviantly violent or simply violent, Scalia suggested:

    "You might call it the California Office of Censorship."


    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/
    [During the State's argument] there was only one member of the Court — Justice Breyer — who showed an inclination to uphold the law.


    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
    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Elena Kagan, who hold key votes, asked questions on both sides without tipping their hands.



    I'll link the oral argument audio when they post it on the SCOTUS site

    Ubik on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    oh man I agree with Scalia

    I feel dirty

    MrMonroe on
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Official transcript of the oral argument:

    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

    Ubik on
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    scalia is erring on the side of liberalism

    I don't even

    PiptheFair on
    STEAM
    Skayel wrote:
    One time, I had a friend over to play a bit of Red Alert on my LAN. During the game he said he needed to go to the bathroom, so we paused it. After about 10 minutes of wondering where the hell he went, I get up and go to check on him.

    Turns out he was trying to screw my dog.
    Once I was taking a poop at a restaurant and a kid crept underneath the door into my stall. I let out a big fart and then he threw up all over the floor in front of me and I just stared at him.
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    scalia is erring on the side of liberalism

    I don't even

    Yea, First Amendment cases are all over the place and screw up all the traditional party lines

    Ubik on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Scalia is erring on the side of FREE MARKET from what I can tell.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • OghulkOghulk Aka Mr. RIBS Aka Andre 3001Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The transcript of the argument was an amazing read, and I found the arguments that the supreme court posed were extremely interesting to the outcome of the case.

    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.

    Oghulk on
    Aka Hey, ya!
    Aka Dashin' thru dese bros
    Aka Mr. International
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    My call is: 6-3 to affirm, Scalia writes the opinion
    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

    Ubik on
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    they probably read a lot of ebert

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • BYToadyBYToady Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Oghulk wrote: »
    The transcript of the argument was an amazing read, and I found the arguments that the supreme court posed were extremely interesting to the outcome of the case.

    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.

    Duh, cause if its more interactive than putting it in the dvd player and hitting play it isn't art.

    BYToady on
    Battletag BYToady#1454
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Changing this thread to be about all things Judiciary, from SCOTUS to Magisterial judges

    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

    Ubik on
  • PolecatPolecat What does the polecat say? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    judges shouldn't legislate from the bench

    Polecat on
    sigpic-1.jpg
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Ubik wrote: »
    Changing this thread to be about all things Judiciary, from SCOTUS to Magisterial judges

    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.

    MrMonroe on
  • UbikUbik another one of the law guys i also like kanye westRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Shariah Ban in Oklahoma is Blocked

    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

    Ubik on
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Isn't there an urban legend of some sort about a small town in America adopting Sharia law?

    Centipede Damascus on
  • OghulkOghulk Aka Mr. RIBS Aka Andre 3001Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I heard about the Oklahoma amendment today on the radio and my first reaction was: that sounds like a great use of time for the courts.

    Oghulk on
    Aka Hey, ya!
    Aka Dashin' thru dese bros
    Aka Mr. International
  • Zen VulgarityZen Vulgarity What a lovely day for tea Secret British ThreadRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Polecat wrote: »
    judges shouldn't legislate from the bench

    hahahahahahaha

    Zen Vulgarity on
    oVSbgTI.png For more artwork like this, check out Jakub Rozalski's imgur
This discussion has been closed.