The full transcript of today's oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court (related to Schwarzenegger v. EMA) is available at the official web site for the SCOTUS (PDF).
Here are some choice bits:
JUSTICE SCALIA: What's a deviant -- a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
MR. MORAZZINI: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are established norms of violence?
MR. MORAZZINI: Well, I think if we look back -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
MR. MORAZZINI: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?
MR. MORAZZINI: Not at all, Your Honor.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What's the difference? mean, if you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales?
Why are video games special? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?
MR. MORAZZINI: No, Your Honor. That's why I believe California incorporated the three prongs of the Miller standard. So it's not just deviant violence. It's not just patently offensive violence. It's violence that meets all three of the terms set forth in -"
And it goes on and on like that. Enjoy the arguments.
Comments
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
I think Kagan might be a gamer based on her few questions.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Or at least has been talking to people who are.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
That's not bad either.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Just a quick FYI -- the justices were pretty rough on BOTH of the arguing attorneys. That's their job. They push some tough questions out there to get answers. This is only a snapshot of the entire case as they have all of the evidence from the previous court cases to consider. But I did think Morazzini got the worst of it.
It's not easy to tell which way this court is going to go. There were cases that were completely flipflopped as to which side voted for which result, which had me stunned. (The "eminent domain" case from Connecticut a few years ago, for example. -- Right wing sided with "unconstitutional" and the left wingers said it was perfectly okay for the government to seize land for economic development by for private business. Horrible decision.)
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
I agree that Morazzini got the worst of it. The tough questions against Smith mostly tore down his argument that ANY law restricting the sale of violent video games to children would violate the First Amendment. What all that indicates to me is that the court will most likely side with EMA but it will be a narrow ruling and we'll see more legislation -- maybe next time put the age cutoff at 13 instead of 18.
I DO think the Justices' questions indicate leanings -- Breyer's, Roberts's, Sotomayor's, Kagan's, and Scalia's in particular. Alito's a wildcard and Kennedy probably is too, but it's safe to assume Ginsberg and Thomas will go EMA given their records.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
I'm beginning to think that if the vote goes in favor of EMA(6-3 as it looked from the transcripts), how narrow the ruling will be will depend on who's writing it.
My line of thinking from reading the takes of First One @ One First, Mike Sacks, and the FantasySCOTUS guy Josh Blackman(http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=5352), is that if it's Kennedy or Scalia writing the majority opinion in favor of EMA, it won't be as narrow a ruling as it would be if Chief Justice Roberts and Alito somehow sides with EMA with Roberts writing the opinion(in all likelihood, though, if Roberts and Alito did side with EMA which isn't likely, they would probably be in concurrence).
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: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Guys heres F1@1F Take, Turns out California video game law Got blasted by Scalia, ginsberg, Kennedy Sotomayor and Kagen. only 3(Bryer's, roberts and Alito) went after EMA literally
http://f11f.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/at-close-range/#comments
What's better is anthony kennedy's comment(which did not endorse the law in Question) said about obsenity(taken from same Website)
Ultimately, however, it was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who lit the match that may, one day, burn this whole damn grindhouse to the ground. The Court’s obscenity jurisprudence, upon which California’s chances live or die, has no place in the First Amendment, however unprotected appeals to the prurient interest may have been in America’s more puritanical past. And Kennedy today took the Court’s first steps towards an outright rejection of its obscenity doctrine since Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas originally warred against its formulation fifty years ago.
The transcript, however, robs Kennedy of his intent so evident to those who watched him on the prowl this morning. For instance, a reader could believe that Kennedy’s meant to endorse California’s law by repeatedly asking questions such as, “Why shouldn’t violence be treated the same as obscenity?” But these questions were couched in his broader observations that “the Court struggled for many, many years and to some extent is still struggling with obscenity.” These are words of condemnation, not of endorsement. They recognize that Roth‘s edifice has rotted, if it wasn’t rotten from the very start. And if California succeeds in housing its law in a rotten hellhole, so be it: sooner or later, the Court will make ashes of it all.
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
JUSTICE SCALIA: I'm not concerned about the jury judging. I'm concerned about the producer of the games who has to know what he has to do in order to comply with the law. And you are telling me, well a jury can -- of course a jury can make up its mind, I'm sure. But a law that has criminal penalties has to be clear. And how is the manufacturer to know whether a particular violent game is covered or not?
...
Does he convene his own jury and try it before -- you know, I really wouldn't know what to do as a manufacturer.
Thank you, Justice Scalia!
I have honestly been dreading the end result of this case and have given serious consideration to getting out of the industry immediately if the law is upheld.
Jason Bentley
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do we let the government do that? Juries are not controllable. That's the wonderful thing about juries, also the worst thing about juries.
(Laughter.)
Scalia might have missed his calling as very sarcastic comedian...
I would have enjoyed that
Jason Bentley
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Oh, I agree we should've had Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewert poke fun at the California game law. that would make this court debate interesting. Justice Scalia got my vote. I wish I could go down there and I could argue about the fallacy of the California game law and support Scalia's view.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
From all the comments I've read from him so far, Scalia seems to understand this whole thing better than the California lawyer. He's also witty and insightful, and thoughtful. Although I suspect he's not legitimately asking these questions to get a good answer, but to highlight the problems with the law that California has failed to address. He already knows it's bullshit, and he's calling them on it within the restaints of formality of the Court.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
oh man.... getting into our rebuttal is just bruttal.
Am I the only one reading this that feels like Smith was a little focused on "This is first amendment speach" and pretty much dropped the ball on on dirrectly countering the law's suggestion that they don't need to work around first ammendment issues??
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Restraints of formality? This is the Supreme Court. The Justices are as close to American royalty as you can get. They can say whatever they want. Nobody is going to say otherwise to judges who have lifetime appointments.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
From Transcript:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?
MR. MORAZZINI: No, it wouldn't, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So if the video producer says this is not a human being, it's an android computer simulated person, then all they have to do is put a little artificial feature on the creature and they could sell the video game?
MR. MORAZZINI: Under the act, yes, because California's concern, I think this is one of the reasons that sex and violence are so similar, these are base physical acts we are talking about, Justice Sotomayor. So limiting, narrowing our law here in California, there in California to violence -- violent depictions against human beings.
So...all a company would have to do is declare that all of the characters/beings in their games are, say, "Alpha Centarians" - maybe give them blue skin, seven fingers or just "pointy ears" - and all is good?? Ya, great law there.
All that teaches children is that it is okay to kill/maim/torture/rape...as long as it isn't "Human". Now, throughout history, various societies have been taught that certain people weren't really "Human" - Jews, homosexuals, Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Pagans....
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?
Taking on count that this law is to avoid little children to play games not only with violence, so even games in which are despicted sexual violence against "human" women, so, if we can torture a Vulcan in a game, can we also rape him/her in a videogame without any legal concequences?
------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Yes but obscenity statutes do not say "image of a human" so you couldn't sell a game or anything else to minors that depicts explicit sex.
For example, the Avatar porn parody cannot be sold to minors even if all the characters are Na'vi.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
What if a mutant turtle is maiming and torturing a human being?
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
If the mutant turtle is the player's character than that's under the scope of the law, as I read it.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
In my game they're not humans, they're hoomans. Hoomans have fingers that are all attached to each other and are therefor not covered by the scope of this law
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Good enough.
Sotomayor: "So if the video producer says this is not a human being, it's an android computer simulated person, then all they have to do is put a little artificial feature on the creature and they could sell the video game?"
Morazzini: "Under the act, yes..."
Andrew Eisen
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Exactly; so many games already have a term they use other than "human". That's about to become standard.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Wait a second. It sounds like, from what's being said here about violence and SEX, that non-human porn is ok for sale to minors? Like if you have full frontal, hardcore sex scenes depicting Na'vi from Avatar, that would be ok. If not legal, he is at least suggesting that it's "morally" ok for children to be allowed to watch this blue alien sex orgy, just as it is ok for you to play a game that lets you brutally torture and murder the Na'vi as well. After all, they're not human (just very, very similar... like Vulcans are just humans with pointy ears).
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
You've misunderstood. The "image of a human" language has nothing to do with the established precedent against selling pornography to minors, it's specific to the California law.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
It also means that even if the Supreme Court upholds the law -- which seems pretty unlikely at this point -- there's a loophole so big you could fly the Enterprise through it.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Yes but realistically I don't see many companies changing their games just for California.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Which version of Starship Enterprise do you mean NX-01, NCC-1701, NCC-1701 A, NCC-1701 B, C, D or E
Take yer pick(Scalia like Sarcasm)
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
all of them! at once!
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
JUSTICE SCALIA: I gather that -- that if -if the parents of the minor want the kid to watch this violent stuff, they like gore, they may even like violent kids –
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: -- then -- then the State of California has no objection? Right? So long as the parent buys the thing, it's perfectly okay.
MR. MORAZZINI: Your Honor, under Ginsberg they are entitled to direct the development and the upbringing of their children in the manner they see fit.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE KAGAN: You think Mortal [K]ombat is prohibited by this statute?
MR. MORAZZINI: I believe it's a candidate, Your Honor, but I haven't played the game and been exposed to it sufficiently to judge for myself.
JUSTICE KAGAN: It's a candidate, meaning, yes, a reasonable jury could find that Mortal [K]ombat, which is an iconic game, which I am sure half of the clerks who work for us spend considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what she's talk[ing] about.
MR. MORAZZINI: Justice Kagan, by candidate, I meant that the video game industry should look at it, should take a long look at it. But I don't know off the top of my head. I'm willing to state right here in open court that the video game Postal II, yes, would be covered by this act. I'm willing to guess that games we describe in our brief such as MadWorld would be covered by the act. I think the video game industry
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
"MR. MORAZZINI: I believe it's a candidate, Your Honor, but I haven't played the game and been exposed to it sufficiently to judge for myself."
I imagine that he along with most every other supporter of this bill could say not only that but also add "nor have i ever played ANY of violent games, and rely mostly on just bits and pieces."
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Knowing quite a bit about Postal II and having played through Madworld, it's my opinion that neither falls under the scope of the law as described by Morazzini in this morning's arguments.
"[The law is] expressly directed to games with essentially no plot, no artistic value... if the level of violence causes the game as a whole to lack the artistic..."
I'm also amused by the fact that he refers to the other "games" in the state's brief such as Madworld when that title was the only other game aside from Postal II specifically mentioned.
Andrew Eisen
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
I agree. Pretty much all games now have plots. Postal 2 I haven't played but you could argue that the gameplay and setting of the game can create a story or tell a message. Who is to draw the line between a game that has a clear narative and a game like Demon Souls where most of the story is from the game's world?
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Having read the whole thing, it seems the Justices did go after both sides, except for Scalia siding with us, and Breyer and Roberts siding with California. Kennedy did say he sees vagueness, but he also pressed Smith on why violence shouldn't be in the same league as sex, so he wasn't as gung-ho for us as F11F made him out to be. Nevertheless, he did seem to be willing to side with the EMA, so I'm very relieved about that.
I called Breyer and Alito (Breyer in particular seemed to want to uphold this from the word Go, I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the ones who granted cert), but was surprisingly wrong about Alito and Scalia.
Sotomayor also performed brilliantly it seemed, and Kagan looks like a good bet for us. I just wish we had more to go on with Thomas.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Kennedy did say he sees vagueness, but he also pressed Smith on why violence shouldn't be in the same league as sex, so he wasn't as gung-ho for us as F11F made him out to be. Nevertheless, he did seem to be willing to side with the EMA, so I'm very relieved about that.
I guess it's one of those things where you had to be there to see it. F11F was there to watch the proceedings. F11F's take on Kennedy may come across better on the audio when that's released at the end of the week(of course if SCOTUS would allow TV cameras in courts so the proceedings could be televised).
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: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Most people are reading the transcript wrong. This is a transcript of the Justices working out the technical details of the arguments (i.e., fact finding), not stating their opinions, which will be issued mid-2011. None indicated which direction they are leaning.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
"None indicated which direction they are leaning."
That's just silly. A particular line of questioning can QUITE CLEARLY indicate the way a justice is thinking. Yes, it's a long way until a ruling, but you'd have to be CRAZY to read that transcript and think "Yeah, Scalia's going to go with California."
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
They had one hour to hear both arguments and ask questions. The best way to get to the point fast is to be a jerk and push buttons. Notice that both attorneys were constantly interrupted before they could finish their answers? That's not because the Justices were simply tired of hearing lawyers talk; that's because the attorneys provided specific information the Justices wanted or because the attorneys were trying to skirt around the issues and the Justices needed to rephrase or force their questions.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
All of which is true, and none of which actually means that the questions they asked did not shed any insight on their opinions on the matter.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
If you understood law, you'd understand.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
I don't know, i think you might be able to get some feel for what the judges are thinking. Like noticing which judges bring up what questions as those questions are what they are concerned about and need a clear answer on. Furtharmore if the lawyers response is not a good one, such as filled with uncertainty, it would most likely lower the judge's opinion on them as they are exposing a hole in their argument.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Yes i may have to take some time to read it through myself... all the stuff i've been hearing has been TOO positive and that ofcourse is because people are highlighting the nice shots that sound good for us. Need to really read up on the kinds of questions that the Game industry side struggled with.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
The part where they really beat up on Smith was over the idea that you can't restrict the sale of ANY violent content to children of ANY age.
I suspect that may signal a narrow ruling, like the Stevens case, where this particular law is thrown out but the door's open for other laws. Still, a victory is a victory.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
What we've got with Thomas is his entire career. He'll side with EMA; I can pretty much guarantee it.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Damn, Scalia is just on top of thing, he's asking the difficult questions.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
"JUSTICE SCALIA: There are established norms of violence? "
That one line does such a great job at summing up one of the great difficulties of trying to restrict games based on violence. The line between what would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable is just too damn vague.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
Agreed, it seems that Scalia has a very good BS detector.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
From the transcript:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is there -- you've been asked questions about the vagueness of this and the problem for the seller to know what's good and what's bad. California -- does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there -- is there any kind of opinion that the -- that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can't?
MR. MORAZZINI: Not that I'm aware of, Justice Ginsburg.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship. It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice.
My reaction...
OH SNAP!
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
If I were there as one of the viewers, I couldn´t stop laughin after hearing this. Damn, it´s almost like an internet discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
"Office of censorship"
Yes name this office for exactly what it is... Man and considering how Califoria doesn't like the ESRB's methods that would mean they would have to be the ones to do the leg work of playing through each game in it's entirety to determine if they are too violent or not.
Re: Schwarzenegger v. EMA SCOTUS Transcript
It would be just like back in the early 30's during the pre-code (Hays code) era. Did you during the pre-code era, states was allowed to determine which Hollywood film were allowed to be shown and which shouldn't? Also I'm glad to see the Supreme Court to have their own BS detector. It looks like 1st amendment will triumph again, and the ESRB does really work well.