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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenYikes. http://boingboing.net/2014/10/20/vultures-circle-gamergate.html10/20/2014 - 6:25pm
Neo_DrKefkaDestructoid Editor in Chief stepping down after allegations surface about blacklisting will he be next? http://allmannerofnerdery.tumblr.com/post/100526443850/im-leaving-destructoid10/20/2014 - 6:05pm
james_fudgethere's some inside baseball stuff going on in this Andrew - likely some stuff we don't know10/20/2014 - 3:30pm
E. Zachary KnightGreat musical video about online trolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne810/20/2014 - 2:46pm
Andrew EisenBut again, this whole thing is just too damn vague to form an opinion on.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenWithout the original communication, it's impossible to say if it could honestly be misconstrued as a friendly suggestion rather than an employer directive. However, it appears that subsequent emails should have cleared up any doubt.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenThose aren't the owner's words, they're Chris Dahlen's. For what it's worth, we do see an email from Gonzalez stating "you've already broken the only rule we set for you!!!!!!!"10/20/2014 - 2:38pm
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician