Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Cold Air Inductions
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > Off-topic Discussions > Gaming Lounge

Gaming Lounge For all the gamers out there - consoles, PC, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-02-2010, 03:40 PM   #1
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Supreme Court to Decide Video Game case Today!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39969372/
Quote:
The Supreme Court justices appeared highly skeptical of the State of California's arguments today that certain violent video games should be illegal to buy, questioning whether such exceptions would need to be applied to rap music and even Grimm's fairy tales.

The justices were hearing arguments in California vs. the Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, a five year battle in the courts that so far has tilted in favor of the video game industry.

The court was full today for the gaming case. Oral arguments kicked off a little after 10 am ET, as the nine Justices took their seats at the bench in front of attorneys for both sides and a packed gallery. Press, including Kotaku, sat off to the left, near towering columns in the massive classical courthouse.

California Attorney General Zackery Morazzini started today's one hour session at the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the "deviant level of violence that is presented in a certain category of video games" requires legal restrictions to protect minors.

Morazzini's opening statement was almost immediately interrupted by Justice Antonin Scalia who pointed out that Grimm's fairy tales are very violent as well.

"So are you going to ban them too?" Scalia asked the attorney general.

Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices and most vocal in questioning the state today, repeatedly and often with humor questioned Morazznii about the California law and its effects on the first amendment.


"You are asking us to create a whole new prohibition ... what's next after violence? Drinking? Movies that show drinking? Smoking?," asked Scalia in the hearing.

"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games," Justice Samuel Alito joked.

No one attending ventured a guess.

While not as vigorous in their questioning, the court also pressed the video game industry's resistance to accept any law that would limit the exposure of children to a potentially harmful game. And justices questioned whether the industry would accept lesser restrictions such as requiring retailers to put violent video games on the top shelf.

Some justices wondered if there was perhaps a valid interest in protecting minors from hyper-violent games.

"Imagining a game that allows a player to torture babies," Justice Stephen Breyer asked. "Why isn't it common sense for the state to say 'Parents, if you want your 13-year-old to play it you have to buy it?'

While the justices did not betray intimate knowledge of playing games, some seemed familiar with the medium. Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked California if "Mortal Kombat" would be banned under California's law.

"Half of the clerks [in the Court] have spent a considerable amount of time playing it," she said.

"I don't know what she's talking about," Scalia quipped.

Morazzini said he wasn't sure about "Mortal Kombat" but said that "Postal 2," a game that was repeatedly discussed today would be banned as would violent Sega game "Madworld."

At one point justice Scalia asked how much games cost. He was told $50 to $60 by the gaming industry's lead attorney, Paul Smith.

To win a decision, California needed to convince the Court that they should allow an exception to the First Amendment for extremely violent content that could legally be blocked from sale to kids, matching a similar court-accepted carve-out for certain types of sexual content.

"What makes video games special?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked. "How do you cut it off at video games?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned, "Could you get rid of rap music too?"

She said that she did not find a five-minute clip of a violent game California made available to the court "entertaining." But, she added, "That's not the point."

Kagan questioned whether the California law was too broad and wondered how one would define "morbid" violence. Scalia joked that California could start a "California Office of Censorship."

Morazinni said juries could determine what is too violent and, dismissing concerns that this could chill creative freedom and confuse game companies, pointed out that the games industry already does distinguish content through its own ratings board.

California tried to persuade the court that games are unusual — that the player, by interacting and triggering a violent act, is susceptible to different effects than they would be watching a movie.

The video game industry, led by Smith, tried to turn California's scientific evidence against it, noting that researchers were, at best, divided on the effects games have on kids. But Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the science had been divided on the effects of sexual content on kids when the Court allowed states to block the sale of some sexual content to minors.

Roberts and Breyer repeatedly questioned Smith on how the gaming industry could say that prohibitions against the sale of some sexual content to kids was OK but the same against violence was not.

What if a 13-year-old went into a store that sold a hypothetical baby-torturing game? "You can't buy a [picture of] a naked woman, but you can buy that?" Roberts said.

Smith tried to argue that the difference between sex and violence was that there had been a long American tradition regarding wariness of sexual content, but none against violence. It's not part of this country's cultural attitude to regulate violent content, he said.

Roberts rattled off descriptions from "Postal 2" — shooting people in legs, pouring gasoline on someone and urinating on them. These, he said, are not generally accepted behaviors depicted in the arts.

"We don't have a tradition for that," he said. "We protect them from that."


Justice Samuel Alito wondered if the gaming industry would accept a California law that simply applied penalties to games rated by the industry. Smith said he would object because such a law would turn the game rankings group, the ESRB, essentially into a government regulator.

Roberts said that the Court's recent refusal to allow a law to ban the sale of animal cruelty fetish videos was done so because the law was broad and proposed that a narrower law was not something the court had ruled out. Couldn't a narrow group of violent video games be blocked here?

Smith said the English language would not allow for clear distinctions between what is acceptable violence for children to see in games and what would not be.

The Justices tried to poke some other holes in Smith's argument, noting that the FCC tried to regulate when violent TV shows can be aired during the day and night and Roberts wondering if violent video games, supposing they are harmful to kids, could be legally required to be on a store's top shelf. He compared such a possible law to those against cigarettes.

"Cigarettes are not speech," Smith said.

"I know cigarettes are not speech," Roberts snapped. They are, nonetheless, he said, "deemed harmful to kids."

In 2005, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed into law a bill that would make the sale of exceptionally violent video games to children a crime subject to a $1000 fine. The video game industry pushed back, arguing that California's law violated First Amendment free speech protections. The gaming industry succeeded in getting the courts to block the Califonia law, as they had in other states where similar laws were planned, all on free speech grounds. Two tiers of courts sided with the gaming industry in California, unswayed by state officials' arguments that violent video games represented a distinct danger to the welfare and psychological wellbeing of children.

California has contended that extremely violent video games should be subjected to the same standards and tests that allowed the State of New York in the late 1960s to outlaw the sale of pornography to children. In that case, Ginsberg Vs. New York, the Supreme Court supported a state's right to block the sale of certain kinds of sexual content from children. The Court hasn't previously permitted any such law for violent content.

The California law would define violent video games subject to this standard as those that fail a version of the "Miller Test," a test for obscenity that defines a work as, among other things, lacking any "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Heading into the hearings with the Supreme Court, the video game industry has been backed with briefs from the main trade groups behind movies and music as well as corporations such as Microsoft, rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the business advocacy group, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. California has received the support of some sympathetic states but has seen no correspondingly large support from interest groups.

The Court agreed in April to hear arguments about this case. Its decision is expected before its summer recess in June 2011.

A decision by the Court in favor of the video game industry would likely end California's pursuit of laws against violent games and leave restrictions against games to the industry's ratings board and to parents.


A decision in favor of California would make video games the only type of media content in the United States that can be illegal to sell to children based on severity of violent content, a decision that would affirm that games have distinct affects on a young audience that other forms of entertainment do not — or that that the speech in games is not seen meriting the same protection as that in other media.
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:10 PM   #2
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Belatedly realized this may be viewed as political... my bad, Mods please lock if you deem violates the rules!
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:11 PM   #3
irocnroll


 
irocnroll's Avatar
 
Drives: '91 RS Vert, '11 Grand Cherokee
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,348
There are holes in Californias argument to make game purchases to children punishable. He brings up an argument that a game that kills babies would be sold to a 13yr old. A game that had this kind of content would most likely be rated as M for Mature and not available for sale to anyone under the age of 17.

I say leave it up to the parents and stores to handle. The parent should have the right to decide what their kids can play and what they cant just as they do for TV programing. And hold the stores responsible if they are selling M games to children under the age of 17.
irocnroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:16 PM   #4
Jessica-Rocks-
One hot mess
 
Jessica-Rocks-'s Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 427
T his reminds me when Ice-T came out with his group, Body Count. The song Cop killer upset alot of people, so they decided to add the advisories to the CD's. I believe there was the same talk's going on, making it illegal etc etc.
Jessica-Rocks- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:35 PM   #5
Jay_LHD3

 
Jay_LHD3's Avatar
 
Drives: CGM 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SW Georgia
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
"The justices were hearing arguments in California vs. the Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, a five year battle in the courts that so far has tilted in favor of the video game industry."


Wow! Five years!!! That is where your taxes are going!
__________________
Jay_LHD3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:37 PM   #6
Zabo
Bowtie to the brim
 
Zabo's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 R6P 2SS/RS M6, '96 S10 ZR2 M5
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Woodhaven, Michigan
Posts: 9,585
California's argument to everything: KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS! RAWR!
__________________
2010 2SS/RS M6
Black on Black, Silver Rally Stripes, NPP Exhaust, 1LE Rear Diffuser,
SLP Z/28 style Blackwing CAI
Zabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:53 PM   #7
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
My main argument is there is already a rating system in place, and just about EVERY retailer abides by it and will ID anyone that looks too young to buy a mature rated game. We don't fine stores that sell rated R movies to young kids, so why are video games suddenly different? There isn't any solid evidence to prove that violent video games have a negative impact on youth growing up (even though they technically shouldn't be playing it, but thats up to the parents).
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 05:51 PM   #8
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,078
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
California...
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 06:09 PM   #9
Synerbee
SoCal Headturners
 
Synerbee's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SGM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Posts: 5,804
Just because I played call of duty and GTA doesn't mean I am going to shoot people

I don't get this I can't go buy a rated M game. What exactly are they trying to pass??
Synerbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 06:35 PM   #10
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icandrivejustnotlegally View Post
Just because I played call of duty and GTA doesn't mean I am going to shoot people

I don't get this I can't go buy a rated M game. What exactly are they trying to pass??
No, they're trying to make it illegal for minors to buy violent video games. The problem with the law though, is that it defines violent video games as anything that depicts the Killing, maiming, dismemberment, sexual assault, etc of a humanoid looking character. Technically that could apply to anything from Legend of Zelda and Kingdom Hearts to Final Fantasy (all teen rated games). Even GameBoy titles that show a cartoony depiction of violence could fall under this category.

Furthermore, it proposes the use of an entirely different rating system than the one already in place and would require a 2 square-inch warning label on the front of all 'violent' video games. Why the current rating system isn't good enough for California, I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps we need flashing lights and a siren to go off whenever someone pics up a violent game, as the parents behind this law are unable to read apparently?

Last point: There is no fine for a store that sells a rated R movie or an explicit CD to a minor. There are usually just punishments within the store itself for the employee that broke the rules.
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 01:05 AM   #11
Big Brunsy


 
Big Brunsy's Avatar
 
Drives: Silverado
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le Mars, Iowa
Posts: 2,291
Well, cali is different than every other state. There are things that when in California will cause cancer and reproductive harm, but get them in any other state and they are perfectly safe.
__________________
Big Brunsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 11:25 AM   #12
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brunsy View Post
Well, cali is different than every other state. There are things that when in California will cause cancer and reproductive harm, but get them in any other state and they are perfectly safe.
Hmmm so California has like a curse on it is what you're saying?
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 11:44 AM   #13
Mr_Draco


 
Mr_Draco's Avatar
 
Drives: 2SS/RS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 6,356
I thought a decision was going to be made today?

In the article it says "Its decision is expected before its summer recess in June 2011."

So we have to wait 7 months before it is decided?
Mr_Draco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:37 PM   #14
BigRigMike
 
BigRigMike's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Ford Fusion
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: York, PA
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Draco View Post
I thought a decision was going to be made today?

In the article it says "Its decision is expected before its summer recess in June 2011."

So we have to wait 7 months before it is decided?
The Supreme Court heard the arguments yesterday and then they will deliberate and write up their decision. It normally takes a few months.
BigRigMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 01:04 PM   #15
SS 376

 
SS 376's Avatar
 
Drives: IBM 1SS
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,970
As a lawyer, I don't see how you draw a distinction between sexual content and violence...
SS 376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 04:47 PM   #16
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS 376 View Post
As a lawyer, I don't see how you draw a distinction between sexual content and violence...
Quite easily. It's been proven that sexual content can affect the developing brain and damage a child psychologically. The same has not been definitively proven for violent video games.

Case in point: me. I played plenty of violent games since I was 13 or so, and even did 4 years in the Marines. I've never had the slightest inclination to go on a shooting spree and kill innocent people, or even beat people up, or anything like that. Also, my group of around 15 friends had a very similar experience (though only a couple joined the military) growing up and none of them have turned into abusive people (quite a few are down right passive).
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2010, 04:20 AM   #17
Eric's Blue
 
Eric's Blue's Avatar
 
Drives: Cybergray 1SS
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Temple - West GA
Posts: 581
Anytime you LABEL a game, movie, etc It becomes an advertisement channel for that product. "Explicit Lyrics" labels did more to sell an album than it ever did detour it.
__________________
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's SS"
Eric's Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 02:15 AM   #18
Big Brunsy


 
Big Brunsy's Avatar
 
Drives: Silverado
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le Mars, Iowa
Posts: 2,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brokinarrow View Post
Hmmm so California has like a curse on it is what you're saying?

pretty much....Notice how all of these things say 'contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm'
__________________
Big Brunsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2010, 02:31 AM   #19
Synerbee
SoCal Headturners
 
Synerbee's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SGM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Posts: 5,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Brunsy View Post
pretty much....Notice how all of these things say 'contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm'
Noticed that to. Must be CARB messing it all up. I blame them for everything
Synerbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 05:59 PM   #20
Mr_Draco


 
Mr_Draco's Avatar
 
Drives: 2SS/RS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 6,356
The jury is in!!!!

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the ESA!!!!!

Mr_Draco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 09:20 PM   #21
Jay_LHD3

 
Jay_LHD3's Avatar
 
Drives: CGM 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SW Georgia
Posts: 1,997
That is good news!! Should had never went this far. I could say more but this is not the place for politics.
__________________
Jay_LHD3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 09:32 PM   #22
scottw
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 SGM Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Blue Knob, PA
Posts: 293
:suici de::s uicide::sign 0015::fighting00 72:Violence is never the answer! (But it sure is entertaining)
__________________
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 10:47 PM   #23
CJ Man
Missing my SS :(
 
Drives: 2012 Ford Explorer [ :( ]
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,648
Wow considering california is bankrupt I am glad our tax dollars are attacking the real issues........................VIDEO GAMES!
CJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2011, 11:51 PM   #24
TOMS1SS


 
Drives: NA
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NA
Posts: 12,172
I have a simple questions. Why does California perpetually suck? Can we just kick them out of the union once and for all?
TOMS1SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2011, 11:48 AM   #25
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMS1SS View Post
I have a simple questions. Why does California perpetually suck? Can we just kick them out of the union once and for all?
I almost think it needs to be split into two states, northern and southern. Maybe if they have less to worry about they'll do a better job governing... who knows
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.