+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Video Games.

  1. #1
    Plane Touched
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    214

    Default Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Video Games.

    http://www.destructoid.com/supreme-c...w-204696.phtml

    A great battle has been won for video games.

  2. #2
    Rich Aemry
    Guest

    Default

    This is a big deal for all of us actually. The supreme court has been wildly out of touch with reality as of late, and it's nice to see them settle down and think rationally.

    Ruling that new mediums of art and/or entertainment are just as legally protected as is a major stepping stone in the right direction. This decision however doesn't fix the ESRB and their bull-crap ways of doing things. We need a viable alternative to a bunch of big studio funded Women's Temperance Union loyalists who never bother to actually play games before rating them. Though in that regard games are just like movies there too.

    I see major long term implications of this decision and most of them are very good.
    Last edited by Rich Aemry; 06-27-2011 at 10:40 AM.

  3. #3
    Shield of Telara
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    703

    Default

    Cool. How about a case for adult like attire, rated R movies, alcahol, ect. products a parent doesn't want their child to use?
    Last edited by Lienda; 06-27-2011 at 01:32 PM.

  4. #4
    Rich Aemry
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lienda View Post
    Cool. How about a case for adult like attire, rated R movies, alcahol, ect. products a parent doesn't want their child to use?
    Alcohol is legally different since it's use causes physical harm to the minor.

    Rated R movies aren't illegal for minors to buy the MPAA is a voluntary organization, and stores and/or theaters voluntarily submit to the rules (in theory.)

    Adult like attire has no bearing on anything at all.

    Product you choose not to let your child use are your own business and that exactly what this lawsuit was about. It was about keeping lawmakers from telling us what forms or media we can and/or can't allow our children to consume. Seeing as there is not even the slightest bit provable exigency which can be construed to view violent videogames as an immediate threat to a minor --the California law was unconstitutional under the First amendment on the US Constitution.

    It's good thing. The supreme court of the United States lately has had a tendency to restrict actual personal freedoms in favor of extending those limited personal freedoms into corporate freedoms. Most of those cases directly pertain to money as speech (bad interpretation IMO.) This is the first case in quite a while that affirms individual parents the right to parent as they see fit.

    This case also establishes precedent to bring other forms of new media into the regulatory framework of the existing governmental oversight bodies removing the need for regulatory bloat to keep up with changing times in media. It also establishes a means to bring rogue bloggers into check since they are now part of that "new media." Which will make the liable committed by such people just as illegal as if Fox or CNN or the Washington Post or USA Today were to do so.

    Good things will come of this.
    Last edited by Rich Aemry; 06-27-2011 at 07:25 PM.

  5. #5
    Plane Touched
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    214

    Default

    2 of the justices that ruled FOR video games, have stated they would be willing to vote the other way if the law was rewritten to have different wording. The senator who led the charge against video games has also stated he wont be giving up. So I expect to see this happen again a year or two from now. I'm glad we have groups like the ESA and EMA who are willing to put up money to fight this BS.

    California is already poor, I can't understand why they're wasting so much time and money to go after video games. Like, really?

    More troubling, one of the justices who ruled AGAINST video games, said he did so because he thought the way the first amendment was written, the founding fathers didn't intend for it to extend to minors. Wtf?
    Last edited by Kakiro; 06-27-2011 at 09:56 PM.

  6. #6
    Rich Aemry
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kakiro View Post
    More troubling, one of the justices who ruled AGAINST video games, said he did so because he thought the way the first amendment was written, the founding fathers didn't intend for it to extend to minors. Wtf?
    It doesn't, and almost every supreme court case outside of the 60's is in concurrence with that justice's opinion. The court has always held that minors are not full citizens until the age of majority, and that laws which show a significant benefit to the well being or safety of the minor are not unconstitutional even if those same laws would impede on the constitutional rights of an adult citizen.

    Why do you think education is compulsory and minors have curfews? Those laws would be unconstitutional to force on adults but minors are made better and kept safer with them.

    These laws however were deemed to interfere with the rights of parents to parent as they so please. That is a violation of constitutional rights, since the first amendment allows the freedom of parents to disseminate whatever media to children they so please outside of unprotected speech (obscenity, enticing a riot, criminal encouragement et cetera.)

  7. #7
    RIFT Guide Writer Hokonoso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Aemry View Post
    Alcohol is legally different since it's use causes physical harm to the minor.

    Rated R movies aren't illegal for minors to buy the MPAA is a voluntary organization, and stores and/or theaters voluntarily submit to the rules (in theory.)

    Adult like attire has no bearing on anything at all.

    Product you choose not to let your child use are your own business and that exactly what this lawsuit was about. It was about keeping lawmakers from telling us what forms or media we can and/or can't allow our children to consume. Seeing as there is not even the slightest bit provable exigency which can be construed to view violent videogames as an immediate threat to a minor --the California law was unconstitutional under the First amendment on the US Constitution.

    It's good thing. The supreme court of the United States lately has had a tendency to restrict actual personal freedoms in favor of extending those limited personal freedoms into corporate freedoms. Most of those cases directly pertain to money as speech (bad interpretation IMO.) This is the first case in quite a while that affirms individual parents the right to parent as they see fit.

    This case also establishes precedent to bring other forms of new media into the regulatory framework of the existing governmental oversight bodies removing the need for regulatory bloat to keep up with changing times in media. It also establishes a means to bring rogue bloggers into check since they are now part of that "new media." Which will make the liable committed by such people just as illegal as if Fox or CNN or the Washington Post or USA Today were to do so.

    Good things will come of this.
    well said +1
    Useful Rogue guides since I don't want to answer 50 billion questions anymore:
    Marksman, Ranger, Nightblade, Blink'Blade, Asstalker, Assdancer, and finally The Hoko Spec™
    Hoko, teaching noobs the way of rogue pve until 12/20/11.

  8. #8
    Sword of Telara Palvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Aemry View Post
    It doesn't, and almost every supreme court case outside of the 60's is in concurrence with that justice's opinion. The court has always held that minors are not full citizens until the age of majority, and that laws which show a significant benefit to the well being or safety of the minor are not unconstitutional even if those same laws would impede on the constitutional rights of an adult citizen.

    Why do you think education is compulsory and minors have curfews? Those laws would be unconstitutional to force on adults but minors are made better and kept safer with them.

    These laws however were deemed to interfere with the rights of parents to parent as they so please. That is a violation of constitutional rights, since the first amendment allows the freedom of parents to disseminate whatever media to children they so please outside of unprotected speech (obscenity, enticing a riot, criminal encouragement et cetera.)
    Parents may allow their children things to do things under their supervision that the law otherwise does not allow. For instance, in most states, parents are allowed to give their own children alcoholic beverages. (Although, if the child gets drunk, the parents may be charged.)

    As for the ESRB ratings, I believe they are a consequence of the push to censor music back in the 1980s, which was a big project of Al Gore and his (now ex) wife Tipper Gore. Here's the history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents...esource_Center

    "In 2000, before the voting machines threw to vote to Bush the Lesser, Gore and his running mate Joe Leiberman suggested imposing state censorship on the film, music and video games industries for promoting supposedly violent entertainment."--http://www.infowars.com/the-bp-oil-g...rst-amendment/

    This Supreme Court ruling is good.

  9. #9
    Rich Aemry
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palvy View Post
    Parents may allow their children things to do things under their supervision that the law otherwise does not allow. For instance, in most states, parents are allowed to give their own children alcoholic beverages. (Although, if the child gets drunk, the parents may be charged.)
    Yes many times that is true. This law however contained no such exceptions and was one of the issues discussed in the majority opinion.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts