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.
Mattsworknamehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/fec-backs-off-flirtation-with-regulating-internet/05/22/2015 - 1:34am
MattsworknameWell, on another subject, Saw this, and while I know it's fox news, thuoght I should share it05/22/2015 - 1:34am
MechaCrashYeah, even I think IP needs to dial it back.05/22/2015 - 12:35am
Mattsworknamesays05/21/2015 - 11:17pm
MattsworknameRE doc, everyone has a tendancy to let emotion get ahead of them, especially in an annoymous forum like the web. We have have those moments. Ip however has nothing but those moments. it's why I stopped responding to him, regardless of what he thinks or05/21/2015 - 11:17pm
DocMelonheadNo offense, but I see your behaviors in the comment sections uncalled for.05/21/2015 - 8:51pm
DocMelonheadHell, I could use both Goth_Skunk and IronPatriot as an example of such behavior between the two.05/21/2015 - 8:43pm
Andrew EisenMock? Ridicule? No, we're talking about serious threats and abuse, not people being cheeky or mean. Big difference.05/21/2015 - 8:42pm
DocMelonheadIn fact I see both mocks and ridicule between both the GamerGate Supporters and GamerGate Critics.05/21/2015 - 8:41pm
DocMelonheadAs for the Harassment, well, this is the internet; people will mock and ridicule whoever they want, whenever they want, at all times.05/21/2015 - 8:40pm
Mattsworknamegoth I think all media news outlets have that disclaimer05/21/2015 - 8:39pm
Andrew EisenThat's an... interesting way to interpret that.05/21/2015 - 8:36pm
Goth_SkunkAnd re BBC vs Rockstar: Ahh. I missed that. Woops!05/21/2015 - 8:33pm
Goth_SkunkAE: The entire disclaimer is a valid reason why I don't take it seriously. Particularly the part where they say "the information contained herein may not be necessarily accurate or current." Because fact-checking, like math, is haaaaaaaaard!05/21/2015 - 8:32pm
MattsworknameI take all media reporting with huge skepticism. the Mary sue Included. that said, there not as bad Jezebel.05/21/2015 - 8:27pm
DocMelonheadYou could say that the Mary Sue only interested in Gender issues in pop culture, and they only see GamerGate as a Hate group that fight for the oppressive status quo.05/21/2015 - 8:22pm
MechaCrashWell, can't blame him for not expanding on it and missing stories here. Sealioning people demanding proof of claims and then calling them liars when they provide it is busy work!05/21/2015 - 8:20pm
Andrew EisenRe: Mary Sue - Uh, why exactly? Re: Rockstar - Yep, we reported that earlier today.05/21/2015 - 8:12pm
Goth_SkunkRockstar is suing the BBC. http://ow.ly/NgzDm05/21/2015 - 8:00pm
Goth_SkunkWhy I don't take The Mary Sue seriously, and why you shouldn't either: http://ow.ly/Ngzkk05/21/2015 - 7:55pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician