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 :

Poll

Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Wonderkarpalright Fudge05/28/2015 - 9:27am
MechaCrashWhat good is being one of the perpetually offended if you don't make sure everybody sees just how offended you are?05/28/2015 - 9:02am
james_fudgeYou two can reasonably slug it out in the article in question if you want :)05/28/2015 - 8:59am
MechaCrashI wasn't expecting you to drag it into the shoutbox, either. Just when I think I have you pegged, you prove me only MOSTLY right.05/28/2015 - 8:55am
MechaCrashWhat argument? You made a joke in bad taste. I made a response joke in similar bad taste. And you are going berserk with...okay, not the flavor of HOW DARE YOU I was expecting (I thought you'd No True Scotsman, instead you dodged it entirely).05/28/2015 - 8:52am
Wonderkarpfyi, thats a self made "REDACTED" to make Mr Fudges life a little easier.05/28/2015 - 8:50am
Wonderkarphow is calling somebody out for being a [REDACTED] throwing a Tantrum? Is it cause you cant dispute my argument?05/28/2015 - 8:46am
MechaCrash"Grow a thicker skin," says the person throwing a tantrum that's filling the shoutbox.05/28/2015 - 8:40am
Wonderkarpbeen a bombing had Sarkeesian spoke, because there would be an increase police presence and nobody is THAT STUPID to make a threat like that and follow through. This isnt the movies05/28/2015 - 8:35am
WonderkarpIts what you make of them. GamerGate in DC had a bomb threat. Police were there, but GG continued to enjoy themselves and have a good time. Bomb Threats in general, you give them to the police and continue your business. I guarantee there wouldnt have05/28/2015 - 8:34am
MechaCrashhttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp Remember the talk Sarkeesian had to cancel because of death threats? Yeah. That's the thing I'm talking about.05/28/2015 - 8:30am
WonderkarpI'm not defending Bomb Threats. They are idiotic and have no place in society, but as somebody who lived through several bomb threats I can tell you they are weak05/28/2015 - 8:29am
WonderkarpSchool Shootings on the other hand are violent events that end the lives of children and come without proper warning due to mental illness and gun laws.05/28/2015 - 8:28am
Wonderkarpcause Bomb Threats are what you make of them. No successful bombing in the US has had a threat posted about it beforehand. Boston Marathon? Okahoma City? You either handle it with caution or dont handle it at all. most of the time ar done as stupid pranks05/28/2015 - 8:27am
Infophile@MechaCrash: One difference is that there's actual evidence linking GGers (or their ideological allies) to bomb threats, and no link to school shootings. For instance, we hate Jack Thompson here, but let's not accuse him of eg. committing grand theft auto05/28/2015 - 8:26am
james_fudgeGo to your corners and let the cutman do his work.05/28/2015 - 8:21am
MechaCrashHm, yes, "lol aGGs make bomb threats" is vastly different from "lol gaters threaten school shootings." Yes, I see the error of my ways! ...wait, no I don't, I see that you're still a hypocrite who can dish it out but not take it.05/28/2015 - 8:21am
WonderkarpThere is a big difference between what I said and what you said.05/28/2015 - 8:13am
MechaCrashNot that it stops you, of course.05/28/2015 - 8:11am
james_fudgeI have edited your comments. They were both inappropriate.05/28/2015 - 8:11am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician