SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

January 11, 2011 -

The Atlantic Wire asks the question "What Does the Constitution Say About Video Games?" by pointing to a New York Times article about the Supreme Court's "originalists." These justices, led by Justice Scalia, believe the law "should adhere as closely as possible to the Constitution's text and to the founders' original intentions," according to the Atlantic Wire.

So what does this mean as it relates to new technology the founding fathers could have never imagined like video games?

Here is some of what the New York Times article said about it:

"In addition to disagreeing about the value of previous precedents, the conservative justices disagree among themselves about what the founders would have thought about technologies and institutions that didn’t exist when the Constitution was written.

In a November oral argument about a California law restricting minors from buying violent video games, Justices Scalia and Samuel A. Alito debated whether the ratifiers of the First Amendment would have thought that it protected portrayals of violence.

'What Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games,' and if 'he enjoyed them,' Justice Alito said sarcastically. Justice Scalia shot back, 'No, I want to know what James Madison thought about violence.' The dispute will be resolved in the opinion, to be issued later this year.

The point of both articles is pretty clear: strict originalism cannot always address issues that aren't black and white.. like video games and violence. However, technology really has nothing to do with it; the founding fathers would deal with video games the way they would deal with movies, music, television and literature - as forms of free speech.


Comments

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

You cannot snatch up those from that period in time and bring them here and hope they magically understand all the other social changes that occurred between their time and our time.

They would have had to actually have evolved along with society over the hundreds of years since their time til now.

That does not mean they would have HAD to have accepted the changes that occurred over time.  But as society evolved, and they lived through those changes, they would have been able to grasp those changes much easier than to be suddenly thrust from then to now.

I've always found the argument of "The Founding Fathers never meant for the US Constitution to do or include so-n-so".  The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution TRIED to make it as neutral and generic as possible.  To deal with probable changes within their understanding that may still have conflicted with their own personal beliefs.  The Constitution was not written to defend only THEIR beliefs and no one elses.  And it was designed sufficiently to BE Amended in case there were situations they could not anticipate or predict.  That was quite clear as it CAN be Amended.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

I always think of it as siding with the average person and their freedoms the most (say a persons right to back up and play their copies vrs a companies right to prevent it via the courts, they have the right to create DRM and online activations and what not but the public has the right to bypass it legally or should).  Basically an individuals right dose not easily get over turned or mitigated(made illegal, stupid dose not make something worthy of law,IE j walking), the right bare weapons is a right it should be unquestioned, you deal with the crime that happens after the fact not go bat shit loco over every instances of quasi questionable purchases or stock piles(unless you can track crimes from said stock pile). Of course we need a better system to keep felons away from weapons anything more than that is really un needed. 

 

The trouble tho is president the courts have said X or Y over the years and thus the law has been derived from that and not the constitution itself, that is a problem with modern law and modern government we are not following a distilled founding rather we are following what has been derived from and after awhile it becomes sewage...


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

Just because Scalia says he's an "Originalist" does not make it so. It's funny how the Founding Fathers all seem to agree with Scalia's political views despite clear historical evidence that they did not. He's intellectually dishonest at best, and an outright liar at worst. Never forget that.

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

The tricky part about trying to get inside the founder's heads..... for starters, there were many founders with a variety of views and goals.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights were both compromise documents that were arrived at though a long series of arguments.. and they had some vagueness built into them because different states wanted wiggle room to do things that other states did not want them doing.

There was also a very different worldview back then, that the justices should be careful about using as a meter stick.  For instance there was quite a bit of 'well of course we don't mean (insert group) should be protected'.. which of course the 'originalists' like to point to as proof that the Bill of Rights was not meant to apply to everyone.  Why should they be careful?  Well, for starters... Catholics and Jews were two of those groups that it was just assumed that religious protections would not be extended to.... so Originalists, if they were truly keeping to those early assumptions that they use to back up their prejudice.. only 2 of the justices would find their personal faith protected.

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

I dunno you can always depend on it to tilt to an individual's freedom regulated by the state they are in. If you try and do more than that that you are just practicing disingenuity.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

Games have plot, stories, make people laugh, cry. They are as much as art that movies, books, TV and music is. Here is hoping the SCOTUS agrees.

Re: SCOTUS 'Originalists' and Video Games

Though, sometimes those tears come for the wrong reasons, like playing a troll game (Kaizo Mario, IWBTG) or a highly glitched/bugged game (Alpha Protocol, New Vegas)

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should ‘sexism’ factor into a video game’s rating?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenIf you missed the HuffPost segment I guested on, the replay is now embedded in the story.11/21/2014 - 6:05pm
Wonderkarphttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2__4yZCcAA9Ytp.jpg these look amazing. Peach is the only one I'm tempted to open cause her packaging is bent. get another nonbent one....man. toycollector me and gamecollector me is fighting11/21/2014 - 5:51pm
WonderkarpJust finalized my Smash Bros free Sound Track Order. Also got 4 amiibos and they look fantastic. I'm afraid to open them. they look spectacular!11/21/2014 - 5:45pm
james_fudgeCan we all agree that Andrew cleans up nicely and can go on any program?11/21/2014 - 5:01pm
Wonderkarpthank you for that line, Andrew. alot of great films fail the bechdel test. Gravity fails it and it has a female lead.11/21/2014 - 4:48pm
Andrew EisenAw, thanks James! Well, now I have to drive back to work!11/21/2014 - 4:45pm
Andrew EisenDidn't have a chance to say this on the HuffPost segment but while the Bechdel test is useful as a broad examination of gender representation in media, it's not at all appropriate as a judgement of quality.11/21/2014 - 4:45pm
james_fudgeAndrew you killed it!11/21/2014 - 4:44pm
WonderkarpMadeline Bergman. second female, they never speak of men, just a computer program. it passes the test11/21/2014 - 4:34pm
E. Zachary KnightDoes Other M have more than one woman in it?11/21/2014 - 4:31pm
Wonderkarpyet Metroid Other M, a game where people cried sexist due to the commanding officers restricting Samus, passes the test....11/21/2014 - 4:21pm
Wonderkarpwait...they are using the bechdel test to determine which games are sexist?.....how does that work with a game like Super Mario Bros when there is no Dialogue? test itself is BS. Alien doesn't pass it11/21/2014 - 4:20pm
james_fudgeAndrew Eisen on Ice! Please join in at 4:23 pm et and support our bestie! http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/sweden-sexism-video-game/546d41cffe344486d400023711/21/2014 - 4:05pm
Matthew Wilsonthose are the same people that said google should pay to list news sites in their news reader, and than accused google of blackmail when google said no and delisted them.11/21/2014 - 4:03pm
Wonderkarpwait....europe can dismantle a company not founded in europe?11/21/2014 - 3:54pm
NeenekoHrm, that does raise interesting questions about anti-trust laws and transnational corporations.11/21/2014 - 3:54pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/europes-parliament-poised-to-call-for-a-break-up-of-google/ what is with Europe? good think they dont have the power to do it. worse comes to worse google can block any European country that tries.11/21/2014 - 3:49pm
Andrew EisenFun Fact: Back when it was new, I was linked to that docket by three separate people in the same day. It was submitted as proof of their claim. In all three cases, the docket didn't even address what they were talking about. Did any of them read it?11/21/2014 - 3:00pm
Wonderkarpits not a piece. its just a press docket. its like a wiki11/21/2014 - 2:52pm
NeenekoAnd for not being about feminism, the piece spends a lot of focus talking about it....11/21/2014 - 2:44pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician