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

California cited it in its brief too.

In case you didn't know, the fate of violent video games, perhaps for minors, perhaps for everyone, was argued in the US Supreme Court today.

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="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.

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

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.

Election day: gamers vote as the US Supreme Court argues video games.

Case name: Schwarzenegger versus EMA

No, there's nothing ironic.

Will it go like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907459.html

Or like this:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/08/08pwii.phtml

The professor posted his answers:

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/part-i-answers-to-questions-about-video-games-and-learning/?ref=magazine

The NY Times has had a couple long (8-10 page) stories on video games in the last two weeks. The first was about the upcoming Middle East war games.

The second was about video games in school; you can comment for a professor who will answer. Many NY Times readers have little idea about video games. Very aggravating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1284854423-KFEkRh2WvoPOdx1EGq69SA

Here's where you can ask the expert:

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/ask-the-expert-james-paul-gee-on-video-games-and-learning/?ref=magazine&apage=2#comments

He would answer Monday.

Wouldn't mind trying this if they have that traveling museum exhibit on video games again.

A word got censored in the first link--sorry if post has errors.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/recreating-a-[C-WORD CENSORED]-video-game-with-radio-controlled-cars/?scp=3&sq=video%20game&st=cse

http://racer.sputnic.tv/