The SCOTUS heard arguments on the Video Game case from California today.
For those unfamiliar with the law in California, it bans minors from purchasing violent video games. Violence in this case is any video game depicting violence against a likeness of a person or child
Opponents argue that it is an infringement of a minors first ammendment rights.
It looks like the California law will be unconstitutional. Most of the judges agree with opponents. One judge asked "What is next? Music? Movies? Cartoons?"
The best quote goes to Justice Sotomayor though:
quote:
Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?"
Californias answer? No, they would be completely legal to sell.
I learned a few things. First, Sotomayor is a Star Trek fan. (+1 for her!) Second, you can kill humans with elongated ears, but not those with normal ears. I wonder if it would be ok to kill and torture little people if you called them "dwarves." Afterall, in California they aren't considered human.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm pretty much entirely in favor of federal rulings indicating that the depiction of horrific torture and violence against elves is encouraged.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Violence in this case is any video game depicting violence against a likeness of a person or child
Is the definition of person not inclusive of children?
Dang, I'll have to tell my wife. I win another bet!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, really, the more important part is that the government is not only vetting but encouraging my groundbreaking series, Elfmaim: The Hackening
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, really, the more important part is that the government is not only vetting but encouraging my groundbreaking series, Elfmaim: The Hackening
Let me know if you need beta testers.
I hope the game only maims male elves though. Almost all of the females I have seen are quite attractive.
And yes, my sentence in which I differentiate between a person and child was badly worded. At the very least least they count as half a person. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The law is kind of reasonable, though I think some rated M games should really be rated M. I dont think HL2 and Halo 2 should be rated M. They have blood, but the motivations for the characters arent related to violence. (well, but then again, not every kid is going to be influenced by that the same way, but some of these games have cognitive and emotional radiance in them)
I can see the justifiability in censoring, like, The Punisher, or something. Even if it has artistic merit. You have to make some compromises.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm for overturning the law. There's a serious slippery slope argument to be made, and I think the Justices are right to be leery of it.
Furthermore, this law smacks of lazy parenting to me. How are kids getting the money and the leniency to buy these kinds of games if their parents are not complicit in the action?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:You have to make some compromises.
No, we don't. Abhorrent restrictions on free speech can keep being prevented all the live-long day, as far as I'm concerned. As far as society is concerned, there are already remarkably (even overly) effective mutual consent restrictions on what gets sold -- businesses refuse to sell, and even get changes in the content they sell. And for everything else, parents can darn well parent their children themselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I hope the game only maims male elves though. Almost all of the females I have seen are quite attractive.
No. Elfmaim: The Hackening is an equal gender opportunity maimer of elves that will not play into people's comfort levels for normative gender ideals. We won't save the females as an inflated feminine ideal while leaving only the androgynous males for slaughter.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Me and my Drow friends would like to pre order.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Forget violence! I'm worried my son might start a resonance cascade...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
total event collapse.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I hope the game only maims male elves though. Almost all of the females I have seen are quite attractive.
No. Elfmaim: The Hackening is an equal gender opportunity maimer of elves that will not play into people's comfort levels for normative gender ideals. We won't save the females as an inflated feminine ideal while leaving only the androgynous males for slaughter.
Elfmaim: The Hackening sounds amazing. Blayne, I'm pretty sure that if the game is going to be equal opportunity re: gender it will also be equal opportunity re: race. Black elves are still elves, after all.
Yeah, whether female, black (drow), space (eldar), other space (vulcan), or any other kind that's slipped my mind currently, elves in general need a good hackening.
Also, Geraine, that Sotomayor quote is great, but I think this one by Scalia is equally good.
JUSTICE SCALIA: What's a deviant - a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game? MR. MORAZZINI: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms. JUSTICE SCALIA: There are established norms of violence? MR. MORAZZINI: Well, I think if we look back - JUSTICE SCALIA: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth. MR. MORAZZINI: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence - JUSTICE SCALIA: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Among the problems with the California law is that as worded it wouldn't stop with "M" rated games (in fact, as near as I can tell, it makes no accounting of ESRB ratings.) As worded, it could ban anyone under 18 from some current games which are rated "M", "T", or even "E-10".
More troubling is that it was punitive towards the retailer to a degree that many retailers would probably choose to forego carrying violent games altogether rather than risk the possibility of a fine that could completely wipe out their video games section's profitability. I don't buy the notion that video games have done anything to warrant that kind of chilling effect on creative freedom.
Then there's singling out this one medium for censure far in excess of the prohibitions placed on any other medium, possibly to the point of creating a precedent that we can ignore the First Amendment for new media that we find distasteful or confusing.
I wish the Court had refused to hear the appeal in the first place as meritless. But at least they seem to be thinking in the right direction.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: total event collapse.
We're talking video games here, not speculative fiction! Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yes, parents are stupid, but overturning the law wont make them not stupid.
Getting the money to buy say GTA Vice City wouldn't very hard nowadays, so ...
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Among the problems with the California law is that as worded it wouldn't stop with "M" rated games (in fact, as near as I can tell, it makes no accounting of ESRB ratings.) As worded, it could ban anyone under 18 from some current games which are rated "M", "T", or even "E-10".
n.
Okay that is lame.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Lumines is rated E10.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Pretty much because there's a girl in a bikini in it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Pretty much because there's a girl in a bikini in it.
Really? *runs off to purchase!* Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Yes, parents are stupid, but overturning the law wont make them not stupid.
Getting the money to buy say GTA Vice City wouldn't very hard nowadays, so ...
So what? Ban it? Do elaborate. Do you think that serious abridgments of the 1st ammendment rights of adolescents and video game producers are justified because parents are stupid? Why not overturn their 4th ammendment rights so that we can go into their houses and check that they are hanging the toilet paper properly. The right to privacy is not going to make them more stylish.
Burn this into your frontal lobe, please: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people, peaceably, to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances."
And yes, a video game is speech, just as much as this post is speech.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Probably the single most relevant very enlightening podcast on the subject and the consequences thereof.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It's a reasonable compromise of the first amendmant if it means one less dumbass wants to pretend he's the dude in manhunt and kill his friend. Do I think stuff should be taken off shelves? No. Stopping a dumbass from buying The Punisher? I mean that's reasonable. I'm not offended at the idea.
Also I'm probably the biggest game nerd here.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Also I'm probably the biggest game nerd here.
Oh I sincerely doubt that... Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It is ... self evident.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I challenge you to a duel, by making that utterance you infringe upon my honor.
This cannot be allowed to stand, Just who the hell do you think I am? My JOYSTICK WILL BE THE JOYSTICK TO PIERCE THE HEAVENS!
edit: If you cannot off the top of your head realize the reference you automatically lose.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Wanna join my podcast. Wanna?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: It's a reasonable compromise of the first amendmant if it means one less dumbass wants to pretend he's the dude in manhunt and kill his friend. Do I think stuff should be taken off shelves? No. Stopping a dumbass from buying The Punisher? I mean that's reasonable. I'm not offended at the idea.
Also I'm probably the biggest game nerd here.
I guess I look at Video Games as an art medium. Little kids can go to a museum and see all sorts of nudity, violence, and maiming in art and sculpture.
I think the ESRB is great, and I think it is the parent's responsibility to judge whether or not a particular game is right for their family or not. If I had children I wouldn't let them buy a game such as Grand Theft Auto, but would probably let them play Halo. Both are rated M. Only one of them would be covered under the California law.
If a company such as Gamestop wants to prevent minors from purchasing games rated M, I am completely fine with that. They are a business and have that right. Movie theaters do the same thing with R rated movies. That is their choice.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
No, I agree. If a parent thinks they're kid can play certain games without bad concequences, then they can buy the game for their kid.
Most kids think museums are lame and they only go to one on occassions; they arent as cool as videogames and they arent exposed to them for an extended ammount of time, and they arent executing a sort of virtual violence in the museum, so it isnt a probable cause for violence.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wanna join my podcast. Wanna?
I guess so, does it involve Skype?
Add me to facebook so we can organize this.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This might be a very alarming thing to say, but do minors really enjoy a right to free speech? Doesn't it make it kind of hard to restrict child pornography if they do? Slides can slip in both directions.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)