Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

March 18, 2011 -
Watch live streaming video from commonwealthclub at livestream.com

Last night in San Francisco, the Commonwealth Club hosted a debate on violent video games featuring George Rose, the Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer for Activision Blizzard, and James Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media. Today we have a video of the action. John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, acted as the moderator.

The most interesting comments to come out of the debate? No one on the panel believes that the Supreme Court will find in favor of the 2005 ant-video game law written by State Senator Leland Yee. Check out the video to your left.


Comments

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Youre going just by something he said during oral argument? Thats not a very good way of determining what a justice might do on a particular cae. Scalia has a hsitory of being weak on free speech. He has voted many times to restrict fee speech, against the other judges. I would rank him just above Alito on free pseech cases. He may vote for it in this case, but from his past history with the 1st Amend he would not be the judge I'd want to write the opinion.  

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

He seemed to draw a bright line: sex can be restricted, violence cannot. He made it a point that America has a history of censoring sexual material dating back to the Founding Fathers, but no such tradition of censoring violence. He was the first to jump in and attack California's attorney, and he did it the most consistently. He also seemed to help EMA's attorney when he tried to go off-track, saying "Careful, you don't want to argue that way." Sometimes justices will attack the side they want to side with to prove their arguments to their colleagues, but given Scalia's ferocity in going after Morazzini, sparring with Alito over originalism, and helping Smith when he went into dangerous territory, I didn't get a sense that he was trying to do that.

On the whole, I'm no fan of Scalia, and he's not the most First Amendment-friendly Justice, but in this case, he seems to have it the most right. I'm hoping he comes out with a powerful decision for us, and the other Justices side with him over Roberts who in the best case scenario will be backed into writing a concurrence.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Gamespot has a good article on the debate: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6304733.html

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Having read that, if the panelists' predictions are true, we will probably have a good news/bad news situation. Assuming the Court does strike down the law, the next area of immediate concern will be who will write the decision? Based on the manner of questioning and comments by the Justices, the best-case scenario will be that Scalia is the one who writes it. He was most critical, least impressed by California's arguments, and had the quote, "My problem is not with vagueness...well, I do have a problem with vagueness, but I also have a problem with the First Amendment." He is most likely to outright say that violence cannot be restricted the way sex can, and a law that tries to do so is blatantly unconstitutional. Others, such as Sotomayor and Kennedy, seemed to hang more on the vagueness issue, which could leave California open to craft a more defined, narrower law.

When the Chief Justice is not in the majority (first glance makes it look like Roberts will be inclined to uphold the statute, but I am going to set him aside for later), whoever writes the majority or decides who will is based on seniority, which Scalia has the most of.

Which brings me back to Roberts. It is actually better for us to get a 6-3 decision without him than a 7-2 decision with him. Unfortunately, we might get the latter. Some sources have speculated that Roberts is a bit of a sore loser, and if he knows he won't get the votes to support his side, rather than dissent, he will join the majority so he can take it upon himself to write as narrow a decision as possible. Which is why he can do more damage writing for our position than against it. He indicated that he would be amenable to upholding the law during oral arguments, but I am concerned that he may write the majority to take it out of the hands of Scalia, who would shut the door entirely on video game restrictions.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

I think your assessment is spot on...and...in my opinion the most likely options for an outcome (in fact I think the 6-3 with Roberts writing is most likely).

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

There is no data, only Zuul. 

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

I think it's just the writing on the wall, as it were.  Believing it *wont* pass is different from believing it *shouldn't* pass.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

No one on the panel believes that the Supreme Court will find in favor of the 2005 ant-video game law written by State Senator Leland Yee.

Do I understand this correctly? The guy who Yee had as his replacement (Presumably chosen by him) doesn't believe it will pass? Is he pessimistic about the Supreme Court or what?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician