SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

April 26, 2011 -

Tomorrow will be the last day that the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments for the current session and ABC News suspects that it will release 1 - 4 opinions soon. This is the time of the term where justices finish up drafting any outstanding opinions to be ready for the last week of June. The term will end during the week of June 27.

ABC's The Note points out the most interesting cases still pending including California's 2005 violent video game law, the Arizona Immigration law, an employee discrimination lawsuit involving Wal-Mart, and a lawsuit involving a terror suspect and former Bush Administration Attorney General John Ashcroft. Here is the bit on the California law:

Violent Video Games: The Court will decide whether states can forbid the sale of violent video games to children. At issue is a California law, never allowed to go into effect, that provides for up to a $1,000 fine to retailers who sell violent video games to minors. The law defines the games as depicting “maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” The video game industry argues that the law violates free speech and that parents should be left to decide what their children buy. Americans spend more than $10 billion a year on video games.

I hope that a decision on EMA v. Schwarzenegger will come sooner than later.

Source: ABC News

Posted in

Comments

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

Still not getting it. Obviously I think video games should be treated the same as other media, but on the other hand, over here it is illegal to sell a game that's rated 18 by the BBFC to a minor (this includes e.g. the Grand Theft Auto series).

It makes pretty much no difference, though, and here's where my problem with the whole thing is. The law would make it illegal to sell a violent game to a child. It would not make it illegal for a parent to buy a violent game for a child. That's what happens here, and that is almost precisely "parents deciding what their children buy" (by buying it on their behalf) that the industry says it wants.

On the other hand, a better way of doing that would be to enforce the ratings system that already exists, rather than inventing some new category. Given that, already, game retailers won't sell an M-rated game to a minor 80% of the time, that would be a minor thing that the politicians could trumpet as a great victory.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

On another note, I had to read "terror suspect and former Bush Administration Attorney General John Ashcroft" a few times before I realised you were talking about two different people.

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

This is America, The constitution applies to children becauses they are citizens of this country. Well at least it did back in the day, Every generation is more babied then the last. After this they will go after something else to protect the children. Hell in 50 years a 15 year old will not be allowed to cross the street with out the goverment there making sure someone is holding his hand. Then the older Generations say how kids today suck and cant do anything themselves, Well whos fault is that.

My dad tells me that he used to go and buy cigs for his mom at the store. Try that now.

 

 

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

Important point: The ESRB is NOT an official organization. By that I mean it never had weight of law before. While it COULD become the law, any ratings made before would be invalid and would need new classification (unless classification was only required for titles going forward).

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

We know its a "voluntary" ratings board. I put that in quotations because NO STORE will sell an unrated game and NO SYSTEM allows unrated games or adult ones. Which this law will try to do which is take ratings away from the private board and into a censorship office.

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

Wait, are you also Allan Weallans?

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

The thing is in Europe adult rated products are seen as ok to be sold IF to adults. In the US they are EVIL DISGUISTING FILTH!!!!! Only to be sold in seedy shops in the back allys or mail order or online.

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

Let's not forget Portal 2. Defined by the ESRB as "Fantasy Violence", this law would also prevent it from being sold to minors. It's "violent." Even mildly. Cartoonishly. Comicly. Games from E to M will be governmently regulated.

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

Super Mario Galaxy 3 rated for adult audiences only by the US governments.

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

I wonder if the time it is taking them to release a decision on this means anything.  It would be ironic if Mortal Kombat ended up being one of the last mature games to be released before the big chilling effect starts... 

Re: SCOTUS Oral Arguments For Current Session End Tomorrow

The ESRB both is birthed and is killed by the release of Mortal Kombat. 0_o

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
KronoUnfortunately it seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.09/19/2014 - 11:45pm
Krono@EZK No that's not the comment. As for wanting nothing do with any of it, that's perfectly understandable.09/19/2014 - 11:44pm
Sleaker@Conster - sand?09/19/2014 - 11:40pm
Krono@Andrew That page of the comments seems to be a bit messed up. It's the one by Titanium Dragon, posted at 2:22 pm.09/19/2014 - 11:37pm
E. Zachary KnightI myself had a Twitter exchange with a gamergate person that frankly soured me on a personal level to the group. I want absolutely nothing to do with it.09/19/2014 - 11:35pm
E. Zachary KnightAnd frankly, that is the kind of tyrade that has a lot of us not wanting anything to do with the gamergate crowd. They take any comment, no matter how innocuous, and blow it out of proportion.09/19/2014 - 11:34pm
E. Zachary KnightI assume you are referring to the comment in response to the web developer, in which the person goes off on a tyrade about "colluding against clients." That guy totally misread the web developers statements.09/19/2014 - 11:33pm
Andrew EisenAre you sure you linked the right comment?09/19/2014 - 11:31pm
KronoBeyond that, I would recommend this Ars Technica comment as a good highlight of the ethical problems people are seeing http://goo.gl/qq8fes09/19/2014 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenAnd he didn't go through with it because he realized it was a bad idea so there was no breach of ethics in that case.09/19/2014 - 11:26pm
Krono@Andrew To respond to your early remark about where the lack of ethics was, part of it was what Kyle Orland suggested in his article. Crossing the line from reporter to advocate. Journalists aren't supposed to support a side the way they discussed.09/19/2014 - 11:18pm
Andrew EisenOkay, I'm drawing the line here. The Shout box is not for discussing other people's private lives.09/19/2014 - 10:54pm
Neo_DrKefkaI wish there was an, "I don't care." for the whole Minecraft poll thing09/19/2014 - 9:27pm
TechnogeekMy third "dart" wound up hitting a Chinese website for soccer scores, and the fourth hit Pokemon.com. Not one of those had anything to do with white guys getting harassed because they're white guys.09/19/2014 - 8:56pm
TechnogeekFor the record, I actually tried "throwing a dart at the Internet", or at least approximating it as best I could by zooming in at random spots on internet-map.net. First hit was a perfume seller, and then some sort of insurance spammer.09/19/2014 - 8:56pm
Technogeek"While you could throw a dart at the internet and find a site where Gamers in General are being harassed, doxxed, hacked, just because they are being perceived as white males." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M09/19/2014 - 8:47pm
Andrew EisenSarkeesian and Quinn continue to get harassed and attacked (with the majority of said harassment and attacks being about their gender) and so, the story stays in the headlines. If Wolfe gets swatted again, it will be in the news again.09/19/2014 - 6:56pm
Andrew EisenYou mean Wesley Wolfe? The swatting appeared to be over his DMCA takedown, not due to his color or gender.09/19/2014 - 6:53pm
ConsterSo Sleaker, what's the sand like?09/19/2014 - 6:53pm
quiknkold@CraigR. Spreading Misandry is not going to kill Misogyny. Its just going to fuel it. half the people supporting that arguement are mysoginists themselves. They just dont know it.09/19/2014 - 6:51pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician