Retired Supreme Court Justice Enters the Game Biz (in a Dignified Way)
Retired Supreme Court Justice Enters the Game Biz (in a Dignified Way)
June 5, 2008
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (left), recently retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, spoke at the Games for Change Conference in New York City yesterday.
As reported by Alison Stein Wellner of the Huffington Post, Justice O'Connor spoke of her involvement in the development of Our Courts, a game described on its website as "an interactive online civics curriculum that will be free to all users."
Among Justice O'Connor's remarks, as reported by Wellner:
If you had told me when I retired from the Supreme Court, just about two years ago, that I would today be speaking at a digital game conference, I would have been very skeptical. I'd maybe think you had had one drink too many.
Justice O'Connor's unlikely move into game development began over concerns about "vitriolic attacks" on judges by politicians and members of special interest groups. Wellner writes:
In response to this concern, O'Connor and Justice Stephen Breyer together convened [Fair and Independent Courts: A Conference on the State of the Judiciary] and from this an "overwhelming consensus emerged": public education was required, not only to preserve an independent judiciary, but to preserve "a robust constitutional democracy." Very small stakes, no big deal. From this, the decision was made to create an online interactive curriculum for use in the classroom, and a free online game that kids will want to play in their free time.
So, will we be soon be raiding with Justice O'Connor's WoW guild or trading lead with her in multiplayer matches GTA IV anytime soon? Don't count on it:
I don't play video games. Sorry.
Reuters has a bit more, including this comment from Justice O'Connor:
If we can capture just a little bit of [young people's] time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:22pm
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:21pm
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Andrew Eisen: Indeed. You can restrict the membership of your private club however you see fit. However, a business can't refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
gellymatos: Would you hire someone against gay rights for a position of leadership in a gay rights advocacy group?
gellymatos: Would you hire someone against gay rights for a position of leadership in a gay rights advocacy group?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:19pm
gellymatos: So, it's wrong to not hire a guy for a position specific to a belief when his belief conflicts with his position.
gellymatos: So, it's wrong to not hire a guy for a position specific to a belief when his belief conflicts with his position.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:18pm
Valdearg: And either way, it's discrimination. I'm not saying that the Government should force the church to make gay people priests, but there are plenty of other seemingly "religious" posts that really aren't all that religious.
Valdearg: And either way, it's discrimination. I'm not saying that the Government should force the church to make gay people priests, but there are plenty of other seemingly "religious" posts that really aren't all that religious.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:17pm
Valdearg: There's a fine line between Job Descrimination and Letting them practice their religious "right" to discriminate.
Valdearg: There's a fine line between Job Descrimination and Letting them practice their religious "right" to discriminate.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:15pm
gellymatos: Oh, and they are worried that "would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith"
gellymatos: Oh, and they are worried that "would restrict the right of a church school to employ a head teacher who shared their faith"
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:15pm
Andrew Eisen: If it is separate, then the church has every right to discriminate against its own members. Put another way, the gov't has no say who the church lets in its own organization.
Andrew Eisen: If it is separate, then the church has every right to discriminate against its own members. Put another way, the gov't has no say who the church lets in its own organization.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"an interactive online civics curriculum" is a pretty dull description, then again I suppose I should be happy not to have it described as "LAWMAKER XTREME!" or something equally sad.
Well there have been videogames about law or law enforement that have been popular. *cough* Phoenix Wright *cough*
Who knows, maybe this civics game will be about citizens taking it on themselves to rid the world of the evil influence of the undead dragon kings of Leng featuring massive raid style dungeons, a slew of weapons and items to better combat civic injustice.
Could happen...I'd play it atleast.
When will they learn to package authentically worthwhile study material with plenty of gore, action and interesting bits which still makes you learn something. Imagine a historcially accurate FPS game where you play through the civil war or a RPG set in the historic 1600's. You don't need alot of yarn to spin that into something fun! And that's just history. There's loads of studies that could be meshed with established gaming conventions to create a learning experience that doesn't "feel" like a study game, you know what I mean?
Teaching religion (well, Christianity) through an RPG where you play Jesus Christ would have been SO much better than reading about it in the books.
I am frankly quite surprised nobody's done that yet. The early history of Christianity is filled with stuff that would translate extremely well to video game format. Instead they produce crap like Left Behind.
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/
Yeah, and watch all the extreme Christians scream and throw a fit over it! That would be a great idea, though.
''If we can capture just a little bit of [young people's] time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction.''
err... says who exactly? sorry but thats an OPINION not fact. And the first step to getting 'young people' interested is not to force your assumptions on others.
Dude, a Civil War FPS would most completly fail. Imagine loading your weapon more than you shoot it. Imagine not hitting anything over roughly 100m. The 1600's thing would be cool though, although I think they call it Sid Meier's Pirates!.
---------------------------------
So speak I, some random guy.
I think as a joke, someone once made a mod for UT that gave you muzzle-loaders...
There was also a "Jamestown" RPG, a mod some school made for Neverwinter Nights.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Actually this is a good idea. We might not have so many idiots trying to control what others do if they realized just what goes into making a law.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
There is in fact already a civil war game for the Xbox 360.
---Oh sure, its fine when a monkey does it. But when I throw barrels at an Italian plumber, they call it a hate crime! - Stephen Colbert
Hey,I've been into politics since I was 13,and I'm 15 now.
No one really wants to play games for politics,they play for the escape from the political system.
I don't know, it could turn out like Oregon Trail did for schools.
@Belgarion89:
They do have a civil war FPS. Made by the History Channel.
Eh, at least she understands that something in the form of digital interactive entertainment may be a way to reach younger people. She's not dismissing it off handedly. Good for her.
I'm all for it. At least she is taking games seriously and not trying to ban them.
An independent judiciary is what keeps the constitution protected when politicians try to have their run of the place. Keep that in mind next time someone tries to ban GTA. This game is apparently aimed at makign sure people understand that rather than yelling about judicial activism.
Good for Justice O'Connor. Our judiciary has rhetorically taken it on the chin lately, with attempts to enforce the Constitution dismissed as "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench".
Nice to see that in retirement she's still fighting the good fight.
"If we can capture just a little bit of [young people's] time to get them thinking about government and civic engagement rather than playing shoot-'em-up video games, that's a huge step in the right direction."
This is the only part i have a problem with. Basically because the only people who playing 'shoot-em-up' games (which i'll bet she's non-intentionally misclassifying) that DOESN'T have any sort of interest in that area usually aren't old enough to vote yet. Everyone else knows a decent amount.
If tax dollars were put into the megahit America's Army, why not for a better thing like educational games?