Supreme Court Case

So I've been following this story for a while and I'm a little confused as to why this is such a big issue. Maybe I'm missing something that you guys can shed some light on....

So if this law passes, A rated games can't be displayed in stores with M rated ones. As far as I know, that's already being done by most companies.

A 18 sticker 2"x2" must be placed on the cover, as long as its on the cellophane (spelling), I don't care. I'm a hardcore collector and hate it when there's stickers on my packaging.

M rated games can't be sold to anyone under 18. As far as I know, Best Buy, Walmart, and GameStop all check ID's. I work at GameStop and check ID's religously, however if the parents want to buy their childeren a M rated game, we can't stop them.

If a retailer is caught selling an M rated game to a minor, they'll be fined. This is, as far as I can tell, the only new change coming with this law.

Personally, I don't believe young kids should be playing certain games depending on their content, I know if I had kids, i would regulate what they play. But as far as this law is concerned, I don't see why everyone's up in arms about it, other then it's infringing on the 1st amendment. This isn't going to stop us from getting our games or stop developers from making M rated games, so what's the issue? Maybe someone can explain what I seem to be missing...

The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.gameguy6700

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.Remy_Labue

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

This is what we are trying to get in Australia, as we have no R rating, and 15 year olds can buy any game (leading to a couple games a year being censored)

This is what we are trying to get in Australia, as we have no R rating, and 15 year olds can buy any game (leading to a couple games a year being censored)

kate_jones

See, this makes me think that this is a good thing. I'd much rather have enforced sales to minors policies than censored games...

I think it comes down to:

(1) Is there a scientific basis for believing violent video games cause violent behavior?

(2) Are video games art?

Schwarzenegger says the answer to 1 is yes.

Game designers say the answer to 2 is yes, and that Schwarzenegger is wrong about 1.

The Supreme Court's power is plenary so they can do anything, including banning violent video games entirely.

Their grilling of the opposing lawyers might hint at what they will do. They're old, but they'll be completely prepared to argue about video games today.

Postal 2 is the game California cited as an example of games it wants to ban.

Postal 2 is the game California cited as an example of games it wants to ban.

appleater

Wait, I haven't heard anything about California wanting to ban any video games. Can you provide a source for this?

So I've been following this story for a while and I'm a little confused as to why this is such a big issue. Maybe I'm missing something that you guys can shed some light on....

So if this law passes, A rated games can't be displayed in stores with M rated ones. As far as I know, that's already being done by most companies.

A 18 sticker 2"x2" must be placed on the cover, as long as its on the cellophane (spelling), I don't care. I'm a hardcore collector and hate it when there's stickers on my packaging.

M rated games can't be sold to anyone under 18. As far as I know, Best Buy, Walmart, and GameStop all check ID's. I work at GameStop and check ID's religously, however if the parents want to buy their childeren a M rated game, we can't stop them.

If a retailer is caught selling an M rated game to a minor, they'll be fined. This is, as far as I can tell, the only new change coming with this law.

Personally, I don't believe young kids should be playing certain games depending on their content, I know if I had kids, i would regulate what they play. But as far as this law is concerned, I don't see why everyone's up in arms about it, other then it's infringing on the 1st amendment. This isn't going to stop us from getting our games or stop developers from making M rated games, so what's the issue? Maybe someone can explain what I seem to be missing...

Remy_Labue

The truth is that there are no laws for video games. There is nothing preventing a store from listing and selling Adult Only games even to a minor. They wont even get fined for doing so.

ESRB (which controls the little ratings on the box) is a business organization that is voluntary. A game developer chooses to have their ratings listed and stores, like Gamestop, voluntarily choose to be fined if they break the ratings by selling it to someone under age. The reaon you dont see any Adult games being sold is because Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony will not agree to provide a license to Adult Only games that work on their systems. They do this to keep their completely false "Family Friendly" image. The only AO games that exist will be for the PC (as no license of any kind is required) or hacked games on consoles.

As it stands the government has no control over video games. Stores and companies follow and agree to the ESRB's ridiculous rules, fines, and sanctions in order to avoid government regulation. If the games industry can prove that its properfly self regulated, then government intervetion isn't necessary. Companies are despereately trying to avoid government regulation because government oversight tends to be stricter, more expensive, with far more red tape.... but the truth is that they also hate the ESRB. It just the lesser of two evils with the other evil being much, much greater in comparison.

M rated games can't be sold to anyone under 18. As far as I know, Best Buy, Walmart, and GameStop all check ID's. I work at GameStop and check ID's religously, however if the parents want to buy their childeren a M rated game, we can't stop them.

Remy_Labue

According to the ESRB the age is 17

[QUOTE="appleater"]

Postal 2 is the game California cited as an example of games it wants to ban.

Remy_Labue

Wait, I haven't heard anything about California wanting to ban any video games. Can you provide a source for this?

That's because you're not a minor!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03scotus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

California cited a GameSpot forum message in its brief--now, that was disturbing.

The Attorney General repeatedly said which games are covered is up to juries because game companies and sellers would be hauled into court.

[QUOTE="appleater"]

Postal 2 is the game California cited as an example of games it wants to ban.

Remy_Labue

Wait, I haven't heard anything about California wanting to ban any video games. Can you provide a source for this?

That's because you're not a minor!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03scotus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

California cited a GameSpot forum message in its brief--now, that was disturbing.

The Attorney General repeatedly said which games are covered is up to juries because game companies and sellers would be hauled into court.

Here's the GameSpot forum message cited in California's brief and argued about today by the US Supreme Court:

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26467378

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.Remy_Labue

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

[QUOTE="Remy_Labue"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.ChiliDragon

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

Exactly, the law is so vauge many T rated games such as Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Final Fantasy XIII could technically fall under this laws restrictions. It's THAT vauge. Yet with the way the law is worded, an M rated game like Dead Space may not.

It's for convoluted reasons like this the law will most likely not pass. Also because precidents for things like this with other media have already been set. Movies, music, and telivision are protected under the 1st amendment against laws like this. Most don't see how video games are any different.

This doesn't even factor in the landslide effect passing a law like this could create. If a law like this passes, it opens the floodgates for even more laws like it, not just in video games. But politicians could cite this as an excuse to try and challenge 1st amendment protection for other media once again.

Exactly, the law is so vauge many T rated games such as Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Final Fantasy XIII could technically fall under this laws restrictions. It's THAT vauge. Yet with the way the law is worded, an M rated game like Dead Space may not.

keech

[QUOTE="Remy_Labue"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.ChiliDragon

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Official transcript.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[QUOTE="keech"]

Exactly, the law is so vauge many T rated games such as Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Final Fantasy XIII could technically fall under this laws restrictions. It's THAT vauge. Yet with the way the law is worded, an M rated game like Dead Space may not.

ChiliDragon

Could not agree more on the Anmesia comment. I've been attempting to beat the game, but can only manage to play it for 30 minutes at a time before my nerves get frayed. This is coming from someone who has played every survival horror game under the sun. The last horror game that got to me like Amnesia was Silent Hill 2.

I just find it funny that they are basically saying minors shouldn't be playing games where they can violently kill/harm other human or like-human characters. But minors playing games that put a real mental and emotional strain on yourself is perfectly resonable.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Official transcript.

Thanks for the heads-up.

appleater

I just find it funny that they are basically saying minors shouldn't be playing games where they can violently kill/harm other human or like-human characters. But minors playing games that put a real mental and emotional strain on yourself is perfectly resonable.

keech

Most fascinating thing I've read in a while--thank you for mentioning the transcript. I looked for GameSpot's coverage but couldn't find it. I'll look again.

I was wrong that California's argument was violent video games cause violent behavior.

Justice Thomas was the only one who didn't speak. I think he has said something only twice his whole career.

He should have jumped in.

Most fascinating thing I've read in a while--thank you for mentioning the transcript. I looked for GameSpot's coverage but couldn't find it. I'll look again.

I was wrong that California's argument was violent video games cause violent behavior.

Justice Thomas was the only one who didn't speak. I think he has said something only twice his whole career.

He should have jumped in.

appleater

Just finished reading the transcript. It seems gamers are more informed about this law than the person trying to defend it to the court. At the very end when one of them asked if you replaced a Human with a Vulcan would this still apply he says no. Then proceeds to say the law only covers violent actions on humans. Apparently a human looking person with pointy ears does not count as "exceedingly human characteristics".

That was funny. Justice Sotomayor should have asked him about Spock, half-human, half-Vulcan.

So I've been following this story for a while and I'm a little confused as to why this is such a big issue. Maybe I'm missing something that you guys can shed some light on....

So if this law passes, A rated games can't be displayed in stores with M rated ones. As far as I know, that's already being done by most companies.

A 18 sticker 2"x2" must be placed on the cover, as long as its on the cellophane (spelling), I don't care. I'm a hardcore collector and hate it when there's stickers on my packaging.

M rated games can't be sold to anyone under 18. As far as I know, Best Buy, Walmart, and GameStop all check ID's. I work at GameStop and check ID's religously, however if the parents want to buy their childeren a M rated game, we can't stop them.

If a retailer is caught selling an M rated game to a minor, they'll be fined. This is, as far as I can tell, the only new change coming with this law.

Personally, I don't believe young kids should be playing certain games depending on their content, I know if I had kids, i would regulate what they play. But as far as this law is concerned, I don't see why everyone's up in arms about it, other then it's infringing on the 1st amendment. This isn't going to stop us from getting our games or stop developers from making M rated games, so what's the issue? Maybe someone can explain what I seem to be missing...

Remy_Labue

I have not read past your post, so if it's been discussed to death then skip reading below. I read the transcript of today's oral arguments so hopefully I can shed some light on what's going on.

1. It isn't just "A" rated games, it is any game that can be deemed excessively violent. Whether it is rated "M" or "T" or "E".

2. The sticker was not a part of the arguments today.

3. Parents could still buy minors whatever games they wanted.

4. A large chunk of the arguments was dedicated as to how do you determine whether a game is OK for an 18 year old, 17 year old, or 16 year old, and that California's law does not distinguish a 5 year old from a 17 year old. This brings up an issue with the publisher and developers when creating a game for a more mature market, will their content be placed on shelves if it there is no concrete rules deciding on what is for 18 year olds and what is for 17 year olds.

A lot of time was spent on arguing defining the difference of excessive violent and morbid violence, the loose standards used by California's law, and why the industry is against protecting children from overly violent games.

I'm no law expert, but I think the SCOTUS will rule that the law is too vague, thus giving California or other states the ability to create a more specific law clearly defining different levels of violence. This is part of the EMA's argument, that variations of violence can not be defined using the English language as shown by the FCC's recent attempt at doing so.

I don't think they will say all games are protected by free speech, but only some of them.

[QUOTE="Remy_Labue"] But as far as this law is concerned, I don't see why everyone's up in arms about it, other then it's infringing on the 1st amendment. /QUOTE] Right. so nothing besides the alleged Bill of Rights violation. :PElraptor

Yes, JUST a 1st amendment violation. The amendment that all other amendments are based off of, and when violated make all other amendments moot and invalid.

I find it interesting (and sad) that people are so quick to say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yet really don't understand what it means. That statement is listed in that order for a reason. The reason is priority. "Life" is the number one priority, if a law would directly protect the lives of the people that trumps all else.

Next is liberty. Providing it doesn't put anyones life in danger. The right to freedom of choice, and speech, the idea of justice, and doing whats is right to uphold these ideals. These are more important than someones personal happiness.

Lastly, happiness. Being able to chase your own dream, and make it a reality. To live your life the way you choose to live it. As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses liberty or put anyones life in danger.

In short: Protecting someones right to make and sell violent video games, providing it does not directly cause people to die, is more important than your personal opinion of said games.

The Swartzenager is a Hipocrot. Look at the movies and games he has been involved in. The terminator video game in the Arcade was not villent. And it did have him in it.

Yeah, he is. He won't say a word against steroids, even though football players and others were dying; some of the Pittsburgh Steelers who used to be my team died. He used steroids when he won some or all of those Mr. Olympia's, I think about the one in Germany where he was unbelievable, maybe because he had to top Sergio Oliva, and today's bodybuilders use them and he knows it.

It was sort of predictable California would be the state the Supreme Court wanted to hear: a lot of the video game makers are there, I think, Silicon Valley, etc.

My coworker's 4 year old plays GTA on the PSP. For that matter, I was 10 when I first saw Robocop. This political grandstanding is a waste of everyone's time.