Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bearstrike on November 10, 2010, 08:17:47 am
-
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=08-1448 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=08-1448)
This is to do with the Californian government trying to restrict the sale of Violent Video games to Minors. I dont know all the specifics, but just listen to the transcript. This gives me new hope for humanity.
Tl;Dl:
California: We want to regulate and restrict vidya games.
Supreme Court of the US: Lol no. GTFO.
They rip this lawyer an absolute new one, in a brilliantly calm manner.
Just listen to it already!
-
Wait WTF?
Conan destined to wear the jeweled crown of California over a troubled brow tried to restrict violence?!
These truly are no longer the days of high adventure.
-
Wait WTF?
Conan destined to wear the jeweled crown of California over a troubled brow tried to restrict violence?!
These truly are no longer the days of high adventure.
(http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/conan07.jpg)
-
I AM THE GOVORNATOR!
ALL VIDEO GAMES MUST BE RESTRICTED IN LEVELS OF VIOLENCE
DISREGARD MOST OF MY MOVIES ARE RATED R IN AMERICA.
/Governator off
-
Only Nixon could go to China...
-
The one time I <3 the Roberts Court
-
JUSTICE KAGAN: You think Mortal Combat is prohibited by this statute?
MR. MORAZZINI: I believe it's a candidate, Your Honor, but I haven't played the game and been exposed to it sufficiently to judge for myself.
JUSTICE KAGAN: It's a candidate, meaning, yes, a reasonable jury could find that Mortal Combat, which is an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spend considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what she's talking about.
The US supreme court is a pretty cool guy. It pwns california and doesn't afraid of anything
-
Transcript (PDF) (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf)
-
What's the difference between not selling violent video games to kids and not selling violent movies to kids?
-
Video games are newer.
-
What's the difference between not selling violent video games to kids and not selling violent movies to kids?
Video games make the user a participant in the action. You are not watching or reading about someone being killed, the player is committing the act.
-
What's the difference between not selling violent video games to kids and not selling violent movies to kids?
Most people have the misconceptions that selling violent movies to children is against the law, and that vidjyagameses are made for children.
Video games make the user a participant in the action. You are not watching or reading about someone being killed, the player is committing the act.
Which you can argue either one for being better or worse than the other. Fun fact, though: There's no causative link between violent media and violent behavior.
-
Which you can argue either one for being better or worse than the other. Fun fact, though: There's no causative link between violent media and violent behavior.
Wellllll....
In the short term there are maybe some priming effects. Long term, it's very hard to set up anything controlled and experimental.
-
To a certain effect it's a lot like sex.
If you completely deny it's existence to your children, it can be just as harmful.
Children used to see and cause the death of animals all the time, now hunting is not important and is much more of a fringe activity. Video games don't actually cause the death of any macroscopic organism.
I do hate how minors almost live in another society where the constitution doesn't apply.
-
maybe this is a state by state thing, but violent video games are already restricted. you have to be 17 to buy m-rated, at least here.
-
maybe this is a state by state thing, but violent video games are already restricted. you have to be 17 to buy m-rated, at least here.
It's not a legally enshrined thing, it's just an ESRB guideline. Retailers may enforce it but they can't be punished legally if they fail to (I believe.)
-
To a certain effect it's a lot like sex.
If you completely deny it's existence to your children, it can be just as harmful.
Children used to see and cause the death of animals all the time, now hunting is not important and is much more of a fringe activity. Video games don't actually cause the death of any macroscopic organism.
I do hate how minors almost live in another society where the constitution doesn't apply.
I don't think hunting games are rated M. People don't really care about animal violence unless the animal is one of the ones that are arbitrarily important to westerners.
-
Violence against Vulcans and androids is apparently okay too, according to that transcripts.
-
Considering they knew that this must inevitably go down the drain, as its predecessors all have, I have to wonder why Schwarzenegger elected to mount a defense for this when he didn't for Prop. 8.
-
Considering they knew that this must inevitably go down the drain, as its predecessors all have, I have to wonder why Schwarzenegger elected to mount a defense for this when he didn't for Prop. 8.
He felt that the general public didn't notice this as much and felt he might have a chance without ruining his reputation among voters