Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

March 18, 2011 -
Watch live streaming video from commonwealthclub at livestream.com

Last night in San Francisco, the Commonwealth Club hosted a debate on violent video games featuring George Rose, the Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer for Activision Blizzard, and James Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media. Today we have a video of the action. John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, acted as the moderator.

The most interesting comments to come out of the debate? No one on the panel believes that the Supreme Court will find in favor of the 2005 ant-video game law written by State Senator Leland Yee. Check out the video to your left.


Comments

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Youre going just by something he said during oral argument? Thats not a very good way of determining what a justice might do on a particular cae. Scalia has a hsitory of being weak on free speech. He has voted many times to restrict fee speech, against the other judges. I would rank him just above Alito on free pseech cases. He may vote for it in this case, but from his past history with the 1st Amend he would not be the judge I'd want to write the opinion.  

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

He seemed to draw a bright line: sex can be restricted, violence cannot. He made it a point that America has a history of censoring sexual material dating back to the Founding Fathers, but no such tradition of censoring violence. He was the first to jump in and attack California's attorney, and he did it the most consistently. He also seemed to help EMA's attorney when he tried to go off-track, saying "Careful, you don't want to argue that way." Sometimes justices will attack the side they want to side with to prove their arguments to their colleagues, but given Scalia's ferocity in going after Morazzini, sparring with Alito over originalism, and helping Smith when he went into dangerous territory, I didn't get a sense that he was trying to do that.

On the whole, I'm no fan of Scalia, and he's not the most First Amendment-friendly Justice, but in this case, he seems to have it the most right. I'm hoping he comes out with a powerful decision for us, and the other Justices side with him over Roberts who in the best case scenario will be backed into writing a concurrence.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Gamespot has a good article on the debate: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6304733.html

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. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

Having read that, if the panelists' predictions are true, we will probably have a good news/bad news situation. Assuming the Court does strike down the law, the next area of immediate concern will be who will write the decision? Based on the manner of questioning and comments by the Justices, the best-case scenario will be that Scalia is the one who writes it. He was most critical, least impressed by California's arguments, and had the quote, "My problem is not with vagueness...well, I do have a problem with vagueness, but I also have a problem with the First Amendment." He is most likely to outright say that violence cannot be restricted the way sex can, and a law that tries to do so is blatantly unconstitutional. Others, such as Sotomayor and Kennedy, seemed to hang more on the vagueness issue, which could leave California open to craft a more defined, narrower law.

When the Chief Justice is not in the majority (first glance makes it look like Roberts will be inclined to uphold the statute, but I am going to set him aside for later), whoever writes the majority or decides who will is based on seniority, which Scalia has the most of.

Which brings me back to Roberts. It is actually better for us to get a 6-3 decision without him than a 7-2 decision with him. Unfortunately, we might get the latter. Some sources have speculated that Roberts is a bit of a sore loser, and if he knows he won't get the votes to support his side, rather than dissent, he will join the majority so he can take it upon himself to write as narrow a decision as possible. Which is why he can do more damage writing for our position than against it. He indicated that he would be amenable to upholding the law during oral arguments, but I am concerned that he may write the majority to take it out of the hands of Scalia, who would shut the door entirely on video game restrictions.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

I think your assessment is spot on...and...in my opinion the most likely options for an outcome (in fact I think the 6-3 with Roberts writing is most likely).

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

There is no data, only Zuul. 

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

I think it's just the writing on the wall, as it were.  Believing it *wont* pass is different from believing it *shouldn't* pass.

Re: Commonwealth Club Video Game Debate Footage

No one on the panel believes that the Supreme Court will find in favor of the 2005 ant-video game law written by State Senator Leland Yee.

Do I understand this correctly? The guy who Yee had as his replacement (Presumably chosen by him) doesn't believe it will pass? Is he pessimistic about the Supreme Court or what?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician