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

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