Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yodamaster]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Huzzah!

[nenjin]

Ahem.

BOOYAH! Oh what's that? Is that the sound of Jack Thompson weeping into his hobo's beard?

[Sensei]

I agree with a lot of the assertions the supreme court makes in this document (not surprising) but I'm not entirely sure what this changes. Is it just preventing video games from being wholly banned? Or will it mean I don't have to whip out my ID card to buy Halo any more?

Partly I'm not sure what California is trying to do- make M-rated games not sold to 17-year-olds?

[nenjin]

It's broader reaching effects are that video games just got significantly more constitutional protections than they enjoyed before, as it relates to the 1st amendment. The Hot Coffee Lawsuit wouldn't have stood a chance if it had happened after this ruling, I think.

In the here and now, it means the ESRB ect... have an uphill battle in trying to further restrict people's access to video games. That doesn't mean it can't happen, after all movies are still R-rated. But it's far better than if SCOTUS had just rolled over and lumped video games in with older media without thinking about it. In stopping California for passing its own little state law, it's purposefully made a statement about video games as a form of freedom of expression. 

This ruling legitimizes claims video game developers make that their products aren't simply for kids and deserve as much protection and right to be made and sold as an art house film. So games like........Left Behind and the new Blackwater-funded FPS, despite their controversial themes, have a valid argument now that they're practicing freedom of expression in addition to running a business.

[Johnfalcon99977]

VICTORY! SWEET SWEET VICTORY AT LAST!

[Angel Of Death]

*AoD rejoices*

'Tis a great day fer' gaming.

I would tell Jack Thompson to cry me a river, but I think he literally already has.

[Lord Shonus]

The law in question was one that prohibited persons under the age of 18 from purchasing games that fit certain requirements. However, the language of the ruling provides difinitive precedent for prohibiting any restriction on games that is not applied to all media.

[Sensei]

That makes sense. So probably what happens is:

-Rules preventing minors from being admitted to R-rated movies are re-written to apply to video games as well.
-No stupid laws are made that just affect video games.

Fair enough.

[Lord Shonus]

-Rules preventing minors from being admitted to R-rated movies are re-written to apply to video games as well.

As far as I know (I do not know the laws of all fifty states, but I know it's true in Ohio and every state Ohio borders) no such law exists. It is a purely voluntary policy on the part of the theatres, exactly equivalent to Gamestop's policy of not selling M games to persons under 18. Like the ESRB, the MPAA rating system is founded in no law, and is purely an industry standard, which has drawn similar critisms.

[nenjin]

Here's the bit that really caught my eye:

Unlike the New York law upheld in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 ____, _____, California's act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence. And California's claim that video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive.

Scalia, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kagan for. Alito and Roberts filed concurring opinions. Breyer and Thomas dissented.

R-movies

Yeah, I'm fairly certain you cannot be fined by the State for allowing minors to see an R or NC-17 rated movie. Obscenity is a powerful tool, but the court is fairly careful about what they'll accept as obscene because our best definition of it is still "I know it when I see it" and that doesn't produce consistent precedent. There are only three types of speech the court is willing to restrict: obscene speech, incitements and "fighting words".

[Nikov]

My glee is tempered only be remembering there are those "Auschwitz Tycoon" games out there. Omelettes and eggs, I guess.

[RedKing]

Wait, wait, wait....Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides?? For that matter, Thomas was on the opposite side from all the other conservative judges? WTH is the Court coming to?

Maybe he wasn't looking forward to the "Clarence Thomas: Booty Ripper Chronicles" game. And if there isn't one, there totally needs to be.

[nenjin]

Maybe Scalia has been so far down the right side of the spectrum for so long, he came out the other side a liberal?

I think he's always been a pretty staunch defender of free speech in most forms.

[Aqizzar]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely clear on what the decision was what it was.  Okay, great, First Amendment protection of videogames because media is equally entitled to legal protection regardless of weight, fine.  Since when is "Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence," a true statement?  Minors can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie without accompaniment; the entire idea of age restrictions relies on setting specific categories of content that is and is not permissible for non-adults.  I probably don't fully understand what California was basing their law on, like, "videogames are only for children anyway" or something.

Oh my God, the Cato Institute used "Epic Win" in their title.  What the Hell is the world coming to?

“Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat,” Justice Scalia points out in his majority opinion. “But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones.”

Scalia is going to cry tears of blood if he ever finds out what vidjagames did to The Inferno.

My glee is tempered only be remembering there are those "Auschwitz Tycoon" games out there. Omelettes and eggs, I guess.

Funnily enough, I actually asked about this a while ago.  Luckily for all of us, shock games have universally poor quality and production values, so nobody wants to play them anyway.

[Lord Shonus]

Since when is "Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence," a true statement?  Minors can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie without accompaniment; the entire idea of age restrictions relies on setting specific categories of content that is and is not permissible for non-adults. 

As I already mentioned, this is an industry decision, not one rooted in law. The only extant age restrictions in law are those that are based purely on physical limitations (diving, alcohol and tobacco use), pornography (not protected speech), and elegibility to vote or hold office, which are directly enshrined in the Constitution. The statement was 100% correct.