Your login information returned multiple users. Please select the user you would like to log in as and re-type in your password.
To those unaware, today the Supreme Court is hearing Schwarzenegger v. EMA, a case which pits the State of California against the Entertainment Software Association. At issue is an attempt by California to reenact California Law AB 1179, previously found unconstitutional, which bans the sale of violent video games to minors.
Just a little while ago the Supreme Court started releasing transcripts of the opening arguments given this morning, and going through it you can see that things are already not looking very good for California's case. When it looks like the Supreme Court Justices are openly mocking your argument, you know you are in for a tough ride.
Some of the choice segments from the 72 pages of transcripts (taken from Joystiq):
Justice Scalia chimed in during the presentation, asking Morazzini to define exactly what a "deviant violent video game" is, playfully adding "Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth," later adding, "are you going to ban them too?"
*
The Justices didn't seem particularly responsive to the studies Morazzini went on to cite, with Justice Sotomayor stating, "One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video," adding, "so can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?"
Justice Sotomayor goes on to ask at one point:
SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game which portrayed a Vulcun as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act.
Now I haven't been agreeing with quite a few Supreme Court outcomes lately but they certainly seem to be on the right track with this one. I wonder how California residents will feel about there tax dollars being wasted on something such as this.
Complete court transcripts can be found here.
(Update) The President of the EMA has issued a statement regarding todays opening arguments.
[caption id="attachment_11115" align="alignleft" width="115" caption="EMA President"]
[/caption]
"Today’s U.S. Supreme Court argument in Schwarzenegger v. EMA was both spirited and stimulating. I’m pleased that the justices recognized that the standard in the California law for restricting 'violent video games' to minors is unworkable in practice. I am confident that the justices will see beyond the facial appeal of restricting “violent video games” for minors and hold the law unconstitutional." - EMA President Bo Andersen.
Comments
13 years, 6 months ago
I myself am a California resident, and I'm pretty sure I'm rightly pissed off about this. There are better things the Supreme Court could be doing with their time, outlawing just one more thing on the long list of personal items that already are illegal should not be going on. I'm seriously starting to think they're just bored and are going after whatever they possibly can at this point.
Oh, also, I'm a minor for another year. I already can't buy a M game without my mother present. Seems like I'll have to start sending her in alone to buy Dead Rising 2 or Condemned.
That'll look convincing.
13 years, 6 months ago
its easy to blame games for violent goings on, but as they said fairy tales are quite grim, and cartoons promote a lot of violence. Geez they are trying to soften everything. They got the WWF, they are getting to TV and movies. Please leave games alone!
13 years, 6 months ago
I might have misunderstood this case since I'm Norwegian and don't understand your legal system, but isn't selling violent games to minors "wrong"? You wouldn't let your child watch Saw, would you? This debate boils down to the question "Are violent video games bad for kids?", which is a question I hate. Sure, there have been people who have done bad things because of video games, but there are millions of gamers that don't get affected for each person who does. But if I worked at a video game store in Norway, and 12-year old came in and wanted to buy Call of Duty, I would say no just to be "sure". However, If a kid who I know knows the difference between video games and reality wanted to buy CoD, I would have no problem with it. I myself am a "minor" and play violent video games, but I know the difference.
What I'm trying to say is selling violent video games to kids is not something that I would do, and I doesn't hurt the kids to wait a few years.
13 years, 6 months ago
Well, it's very good to hear the Supreme Court has at least some common sense going into this. It's still sad that the state is even arguing this case.
13 years, 6 months ago
The Governator will not be pleased...
But seriously, its good to see that the legal system has evolved alot in their feeling towards videogames in the past few years. I wonder what it will be like when THIS generation is in office in twenty years or so...
13 years, 6 months ago
As a California resident, I must say this is a pretty big waste of tax dollars that could of gone to School Districts. Before graduating High School, they had to remove a LOT of bus routes due to budget cuts. I had to walk 2 miles to get on the bus for 2 weeks before graduating, it's BS. California State Government has shown me time and time again that they have no clue what they are doing.
13 years, 6 months ago
Just to give Joystiq some more love because this was just brilliant: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/our-favorite-scotus-quotes-with-commentary-from-the-nba-jam-guy/
Mulling over the full transcripts now but the excerpts are looking good for us.
13 years, 6 months ago
This case does seem like a waste a time for a Supreme Court to handle. Though if the State does end up winning, hopefully we'll hear less ten year old kids trash talking on Call of Duty.
13 years, 6 months ago
I seem to remember this Schwarzenegger fellow being involved in quite a few films that held violence at their core. I don't know where people get off doing this kind of stuff. The Supreme Court should have just walked in, shouted "Freedom of Speech!" and walked out. I understand selling M rated games to minors is wrong, but that is nothing that any state or federal government should be able to control. So many companies already take a strong stance against the act and are fully capable of conducting internal investigations should this type of thing happen.
While I agree a minor should not be able to walk into a store and purchase a game meant for older audiences (and my experience says they can't) but the content that goes into any game should be at the sole digression of the person or persons creating it and should fall under no regulations what so ever.
13 years, 6 months ago
Wow those transcripts were actually pretty interesting to read through.
I still cant believe people think they can make video games their bitch and always label them as an excuse for violence.
God it makes me want to drive a wiimote down their throat. !!!
13 years, 6 months ago
God, I'm so happy that Sotomayor is from New York, makes our state look good after.... *shivers* Palladino.
13 years, 6 months ago
They better not take away my baby torture game!!!
(Note: California constantly brings up some kind of baby torture game that is apparently really popular in the US.)
13 years, 6 months ago
Yeah…I thought nobody bought Postal 2. Schwarzenegger just doesn't know what video games are and how to handle them.
I heard a quote yesterday from the court "Reading about [violence] is one thing, seeing it is another and doing it is another" … Apparently pushing a button is equal to throwing a human into meat grinder. BUT! If the button is on TV remote it is perfectly okay!
13 years, 6 months ago
> Roberts asks whether Smith would object to a rule that said all the most violent videos "have to be on the top shelf out of the reach of children," noting they already do that with cigarettes. Smith replies that "cigarettes are not speech, your honor." Roberts snaps back: "I know that cigarettes are not speech, Mr. Smith." Silently adding "Because. You. Can't. Smoke. Speech."
13 years, 6 months ago
This is ridiculous. Really, Parents are just too stupid to blame themselves.
"Oh what is this game called again? Grand Theft Auto? what is this rating M? for Mature? Little Johnny wants this game, OK"
Really I see more PARENTS buy violent and mature games for their children, then children. If anyone should blame anyone, is Parents blaming their shitty parents senses. If common sense when you see a Rating for 17+ isn't the game you 12 yr old should be playing.
Parents need to fucking stop bitching about shit and do something. They are the ones who have the money, the car, the authority as they pay the electric bill.
This subject just pisses me off to no end.