The American Bar Association Journal offers a history lesson on the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, including what will likely be the salient points of California's arguments before the Supreme Court. The story begins with an overview of all the things government has tried to regulate - from dime novels in the 1800's to comic books in the late 60's - and everything in between. It always seems to start with the children. Who can say no to preserving the safety of children, after all? Of course, all of those efforts have failed.
But California is looking at one ruling that it can try to apply to video games - the 1968 Supreme Court ruling in Ginsberg v. New York. From the article:
To backers of the California measure there has been at least one constitutionally significant development since those earlier eras. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Ginsberg v. New York that states could restrict access for minors to materials that were protected speech for adults. In that case, at issue was minors’ access to sexually explicit materials—“girlie magazines,” as the court put it.
In its brief, California said that "violent video games, like sexual images, can be harmful to minors and have little or no redeeming social value for them." The state rolls out an oldy to make its points: Postal II.
The violence in Postal II includes torturing images of young girls—setting them on fire and bashing their brains out with a shovel—for no reason other than to accumulate more points in the game."
Read the rest here.




Comments
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
It's interesting that they keep bringing up Postal 2. Sure there are tons of violent things you can do. But there aren't actually any violent things you have to do. Just like they claimed way back when, it's only as violent as you make it.
A lot like real life in that way. You can go around with a gun murdering people. But no one makes you.
===============
Chris Kimberley
===============
Chris Kimberley
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
Postal 2...
Yeah, because it´s the most popular game today and all the cool kids play it.
California declares that “violent video games, like sexual images, can be harmful to minors and have little or no redeeming social value for them.”
There are cartoons on TV that actually don´t have social values on them, but they still on air and no one is complaining. Anyways, enterteinment doesn´t always have the need of having social message or morality attached to them.
if the game appeals to “a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and, taken as a whole, lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.”
This parts from the "fact" that all violent games are aimed toward children, which is not true. And the part of lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors", that could mean anything they don´t like.
“Under strict scrutiny, the state has not produced substantial evidence that supports the legislature’s conclusion that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors,”
Thank you.
“We see someone’s head cut off [in a video game], there’s a repulsion we feel,” says California state Sen. Leland Y. Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco who sponsored the state law. “When you see that hundreds of thousands of times, you become desensitized.”
That´s because we aren´t hyper-sensitive crybabies like you.
Morazzini says, “The legislature used these studies for what they are. They show a correlation [between violent media and aggression], not causation.”
Thank you, again.
“Violence does have its place—look at Grimm’s Fairy Tales, The Iliad,” he says. “But why should offensive violence be treated any differently than offensive sex?”
Too bad that many fairy tales were alterated by Disney since many years ago. There is many people who doesn´t know other version of those stories rather than the Disney´s version.
“The fact is the self-regulatory system is working.”
As always, politicians are inmmune to logic and facts.
------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
"for no reason other than to accumulate more points in the game."
is there even a point/score system in Postal 2?
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
At the end it tells you how many people you killed and gives you a rating based on that. But no points are rewarded at all in game.
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
Which means California committed perjury before the highest court in the land.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
It's not perjury if it's unintentional. But yeah, people who talk about "points" in games are pretty seriously illiterate of the medium they're criticizing.
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
It's not perjury if it's unintentional.
Yeah, if it was unintentional. But considering that this is pretty much California's final appeal in this case, the possibility that they are lying must be considered.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.
Re: ABA Journal Highlights Upcoming SCOTUS Fight
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.