Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Moderator: Milldawg

User avatar

Topic author
DrumsofWar
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:55 pm
Contact:
Status: Offline

Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby DrumsofWar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:36 am

This is a pretty big case since it's the first national one and an anti-censorship decision would essentially end most state-level challenges on the subject. Two encouraging signs are that at least 3 of the justices, including the recently selected Sotomayor and conservative Scalia, seemed to be against any form of censorship as well as the fact that the Supreme Court voted earlier this year to strike down censorship.

The case name is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. No, really.

Full story

User avatar

Krazy
Zerg Creep Colony Landscaper
Zerg Creep Colony Landscaper
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:49 am
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Krazy » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:46 am

Iirc all charges against a state go against the name of the governor.

So if the pro-games win, kids could buy gta games at gamestop without needing an I'd?

User avatar

Topic author
DrumsofWar
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:55 pm
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby DrumsofWar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:16 am

The ESRB system is voluntary as is any store's compliance with it. If the state of California wins, access to certain games could then be defined by law (and not by the industry) including a fine, where a loss would end any serious attempt to regulate video game purchasing by minors for some time.

User avatar

Theia_Loki
Zerg Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Zerg Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: clarington area (residence better left unknown)
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Theia_Loki » Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:41 am

*sigh*

I still can't wrap my head around the reasoning behind those "groups" pushing for law to regulate violent games. Is it really that hard to read the ratings shown on the game cases and keep kids younger than said rating from playing it themselves?

My parents at least aren't oblivious to what games I play, and they (well, mom at least) made sure I wasn't playing something too graphic when I was younger.

On a slightly rambling side-note, I still recall my sister's very silly "don't play that" comments towards Bully (from a bunch of years back), even though I still haven't rented and played it yet. I guess even with good parenting from those parents & caretakers for their kids there's still folks who excessively worry over things that can be easily monitored, provided they keep to it from a very young age.

User avatar

IskatuMesk
Xel'naga World Shaper
Xel'naga World Shaper
Posts: 8788
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: M͈̙̞͍͞ͅE̹H̨͇̰͈͕͇̫Ì̩̳CO̼̩̤͖͘
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby IskatuMesk » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:33 am

DrumsofWar wrote:The ESRB system is voluntary as is any store's compliance with it. If the state of California wins, access to certain games could then be defined by law (and not by the industry) including a fine, where a loss would end any serious attempt to regulate video game purchasing by minors for some time.


In all honesty this doesn't sound too bad if I am understanding it correctly. It's the same way with alcohol, which should be banned completely, as unlike games it's dangerous. But I certainly wouldn't be opposed to keeping GoW out of hands of little timmy until his balls drop.

But what's more likely is they'd use this as a gateway into actual censorship.
Image~[Gameproc]~Image
Warning: dialogue contains politically incorrect content. Viewer rearsore may occur.

User avatar

Hercanic
a.k.a. the REAL Lavarinth
a.k.a. the REAL Lavarinth
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:11 am
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Hercanic » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:52 am

A gateway it would become, as not even violent movies are subject to these kinds of laws (the rating system for movies, as with games, is entirely voluntary).
Image
                                                         We mod Starcraft.

User avatar

Topic author
DrumsofWar
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:55 pm
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby DrumsofWar » Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:44 pm

The only way out of this that would satisfy both sides would be to split the difference. Make games with full nudity illegal with a considerable fine for distribution to minors, exempt player use of nudity addons, then let the violent games do whatever they may.


Archangel
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:01 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Archangel » Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:56 pm

Are we seriously arguing video-game censorship?

Look, it's this simple: Censorship is censorship. It's the big long arm of the Federal Nanny telling you she knows more about what's better for you than you do and you had better live YOUR life HER way or she'll take you to jail by threat of the gun. Buckle your seatbelt! Don't smoke cigarettes! Don't drink alcohol! Don't play violent video games! Eat more vegetables! Play more soccer! SERVE THE HIVE.

Fuck that shit.

If I want to buy poison for my own consumption, and I'm of legal age, it's nobody's business and everybody can piss off. If I want to play a violent video game, to vent my frustrations of the world or just be-damned-cause, who is anybody to tell me different?

Fuck the government, man. Get the hell out of our lives.

User avatar

Xenon
Zerg Queen's Nest Slave Trainee
Zerg Queen's Nest Slave Trainee
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:29 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Xenon » Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:29 am

Damn straight Archangel. There's another important issue the SC will have to decide in a few months, and if it sides with the government it won't just be a gateway, but a portal to Hell.


Mr.
Zerg Creep Colony Landscaper
Zerg Creep Colony Landscaper
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:48 am
Location: Virginia
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Mr. » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:59 am

Archangel wrote:If I want to buy poison for my own consumption, and I'm of legal age, it's nobody's business and everybody can piss off.


What is the legal age for buying poison? I agree with you that censorship is retarded, and I'm against the video game regulation. But with that one sentence, you kindof negate your whole argument by adding in the "legal age" bit, since that is exactly what this whole thing is about. It won't affect what us old farts can and can't buy. Just anyone under the "legal age."

Nonetheless, I agree, it's not the government's job.


Archangel
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:01 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Archangel » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:04 am

Being a Libertarian means I actually do believe in a rule of law. I'm not an anarchist.

"Legal age" is - for the layman - the legal age of consent, (in this country it's 18) where we are of right and sound enough mind to stand independent of our parental guardians, as full citizens. We can vote, we can live on our own, we can do all sorts of things those younger than 18 can do.

User avatar

Topic author
DrumsofWar
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Protoss Infested Terran (Unemployed)
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:55 pm
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby DrumsofWar » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:47 am

Crap, Archangel agrees with me. But yeah, I see censorship as censorship.

The only rationale you'd have against this is IF video games are as harmful as alcohol or nicotine, which pretty much everyone agrees should have a legal age limit (even if that number moves). I'd be more for not letting anyone under 16 view MTV and VH1 at this point.

User avatar

IskatuMesk
Xel'naga World Shaper
Xel'naga World Shaper
Posts: 8788
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: M͈̙̞͍͞ͅE̹H̨͇̰͈͕͇̫Ì̩̳CO̼̩̤͖͘
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby IskatuMesk » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:57 pm

Archangel wrote:Look, it's this simple: Censorship is censorship. It's the big long arm of the Federal Nanny telling you she knows more about what's better for you than you do and you had better live YOUR life HER way or she'll take you to jail by threat of the gun. Buckle your seatbelt! Don't smoke cigarettes! Don't drink alcohol! Don't play violent video games! Eat more vegetables! Play more soccer! SERVE THE HIVE.


You know who that sounds like? Blizzard! *laughs*
Image~[Gameproc]~Image
Warning: dialogue contains politically incorrect content. Viewer rearsore may occur.


Archangel
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Terran Nuclear Silo Safety Inspector
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:01 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby Archangel » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:15 pm

You ain't shit'n me.

And while it pisses me off to no end, they're private and this is their private property. They have that right because we don't have to buy into their bullshit. But when a Government does the same thing, we don't have that choice. Unless we have a hankering for jail time. And soap.

User avatar

aiurz
Terran Refinery Attendant
Terran Refinery Attendant
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 1:53 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Supreme Court hears arguments on video game censorship

Postby aiurz » Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:25 am

Archangel wrote:Are we seriously arguing video-game censorship?

Look, it's this simple: Censorship is censorship. It's the big long arm of the Federal Nanny telling you she knows more about what's better for you than you do and you had better live YOUR life HER way or she'll take you to jail by threat of the gun. Buckle your seatbelt! Don't smoke cigarettes! Don't drink alcohol! Don't play violent video games! Eat more vegetables! Play more soccer! SERVE THE HIVE.

Fuck that shit.

If I want to buy poison for my own consumption, and I'm of legal age, it's nobody's business and everybody can piss off. If I want to play a violent video game, to vent my frustrations of the world or just be-damned-cause, who is anybody to tell me different?

Fuck the government, man. Get the hell out of our lives.

I don't see what's censorship about saying "This material is inappropriate for minors".

It's not "you can't have violent video games"- it's "We should keep violent and sexually perverse material away from impressionable young people."


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests