Video games and the law

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, I never actually said it's a good idea. Actually I'm pretty neutral on the law, because I don't think it's much more than a political statement. I just tried to objectively correct some of the distortions and scare tactics I see in the gaming media on this subject.

[Calax]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5113.guest.html

 

 

Have fun Dagon.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Saw this earlier. Now don't you feel dirty being in bed with Rush? (btw, I'm not a big fan, the guy is too much of a blow hard)

 

Edit: I noticed the caller misrepresented the case also, he never mentioned the games are only being regulated with respect to children buying them, not that they're not protected under the First Amendment.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Dude, regulation is regulation.

 

The reason this even got to the Supreme court is that the ESA is trying to get them protected under first amendment and in order for the law to even work the government has to classify the games separately from other medias so that they don't get 1st amendment protections on what can and can't be sold to whom.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not sure they're actually claiming games are different from other media in First Amendment protection, just that the law applies to games only at this point. Here's what looks like an objective legal analysis, althought I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6191...on_and_the_.php

[Calax]

*shrugs* doesn't matter to me that I'm "In bed" with rush. I may disagree with the man 99% of the time, but even disagreeable dinks do have some good points.

 

That said, the article you linked basically amounted to "Yeah, the supreme court is gonna squash this because it doesn't me the standards required to regulate speech"

[Monte Carlo]

Dude, regulation is regulation.

 

I'm getting confused Calax. Are you a soppy leftist or a die-hard macho libertarian? It cannot be both.

[Calax]

I'm neither and both at the same time.

 

In order for this law to pass, the government has to show that self regulation wouldn't work at all, and that the Law is the only way to properly regulate this form of speech. Neither of the two lower parts of the court have decided this was true, and kept the protection of free speech in place. Basically congress cannot make a law that regulates speech unless it falls under the obscenity category or the category of a threat (to public order or otherwise). And even then they have to show that the ESRB and similar regulatory bodies are incapable of doing it themselves.

 

I'm not necessarily anti- or pro- regulation in general, until it comes to very specific topics, like freedom of speech and the regulation of the access to what is considered free speech.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That said, the article you linked basically amounted to "Yeah, the supreme court is gonna squash this because it doesn't me the standards required to regulate speech"

Read it again, it doesn't say that. It's saying that was the reasoning of lower courts, but for some reason the Supreme Court wants to take another look. They could've just accepted the Ninth Circus decision and that would be the end of it.

 

Edit: I bet if you polled legal experts before the corporate free speech decision, most would have said the court would rule against the corporations. Btw, it's interesting that the people who were against corporate free speech are probably the same people who say games are protected free speech. But aren't games made and sold by corporations?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

That said, the article you linked basically amounted to "Yeah, the supreme court is gonna squash this because it doesn't me the standards required to regulate speech"

Read it again, it doesn't say that. It's saying that was the reasoning of lower courts, but for some reason the Supreme Court wants to take another look. They could've just accepted the Ninth Circus decision and that would be the end of it.

 

Edit: I bet if you polled legal experts before the corporate free speech decision, most would have said the court would rule against the corporations. Btw, it's interesting that the people who were against corporate free speech are probably the same people who say games are protected free speech. But aren't games made and sold by corporations?

A couple things:

 

One, there's actually a line in that article you apparently missed where it's suggested that the court may have accepted the case in order to simply but this to rest totally (as the other legal battles along these lines have cost various states 2 million put together).

 

Two, I don't really know what the hell you're talking about polling the experts about

 

Three, Who said I'm against free speech for anything? Now, corporations are allowed free speech, but using money is not a speaking action if that's what you're getting at. Also with the "aren't games sold by corporations" idiocy, SO ARE BOOKS, MUSIC, MOVIES, AND ANY OTHER MEDIA YOU CAN THINK OF! All those media are also protected by free speech so go figure numbskull.

[Calax]

http://kotaku.com/5678903/supreme-court-pu...-video-game-law

 

It would seem that Scallia is... very very critical of the California law.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101102/ap_en_...ent_video_games

 

Interesting that this may not be the usual liberal/conservative split.

[Calax]

Well, usually the conservatives are anti-regulation and the liberals are babysitter state. I'm gonna guess that this'll be either ejected or shot down

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/02/scotus.vi...x.html?hpt=Sbin

 

Scallia seems to think that this would create a department of censorship in california

Edited November 2, 2010 by Calax

[Thorton_AP]

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/our-favo...he-nba-jam-guy/

 

Boom-shaka-laka

[Tale]

If it had come out of anywhere but California, I might think it's something other than the movie industry trying to suppress competing entertainment. The Supreme Court's questions bring me back to this in wondering why video games are singled out.

 

When we've got games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty outselling movie blockbusters, I can't think the movie industry isn't going to be taken aback. They have, for years, had to cut movies down from R to PG-13 in an effort to increase viewership. But videogames don't seem have that problem.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tale

[Wrath of Dagon]

The movie industry is backing the video game industry in this. Also it's not just California that passed this kind of law, it's just that the California case got to the Supreme Court.

[Calax]

If it had come out of anywhere but California, I might think it's something other than the movie industry trying to suppress competing entertainment. The Supreme Court's questions bring me back to this in wondering why video games are singled out.

 

When we've got games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty outselling movie blockbusters, I can't think the movie industry isn't going to be taken aback. They have, for years, had to cut movies down from R to PG-13 in an effort to increase viewership. But videogames don't seem have that problem.

Thing is, movies are easy for parents to screen and know about because they're such a big thing and only 90 minutes long. A game? not so much.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's an article which shows the responses, not just the questions: http://kotaku.com/5679655/highlights-of-to...video-game-case

 

Quite interesting, it's actually a thoughtful discussion. The court is having a problem with the vagueness of the law, which I thought was the industrie's best argument.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

If it had come out of anywhere but California, I might think it's something other than the movie industry trying to suppress competing entertainment. The Supreme Court's questions bring me back to this in wondering why video games are singled out.

 

When we've got games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty outselling movie blockbusters, I can't think the movie industry isn't going to be taken aback. They have, for years, had to cut movies down from R to PG-13 in an effort to increase viewership. But videogames don't seem have that problem.

Thing is, movies are easy for parents to screen and know about because they're such a big thing and only 90 minutes long. A game? not so much.

 

Interesting point.

[Orogun01]

Thing is, movies are easy for parents to screen and know about because they're such a big thing and only 90 minutes long. A game? not so much.

Parents know about movies because they grew up watching movies while the system was enabled. Games are only their first generation of gaming parents and they have only become widespread in the last 10 years, give it time so that our generation ( which is already educated on the ESBR) has kids of their own. It will be easy for them to monitor their kid's games.

[Calax]

Still oro, it's not like a parent, even a gaming parent, is going to play an entire game just because their kid wants it an d they want to make sure it's "safe".

[Tale]

So, we should beware DVD sets? How many parents read their children's books ahead of time? "____ an entire ____" hasn't exactly been a problem.

[Calax]

Depends on what you mean by dvd sets. If it's a tv show, usually the parent watched it the first time it was running and the kid loved it. For books... hell nobody checks books (my parents were really confused when I asked them what "fondle" meant in 5th grade due to a book)

[Tale]

For books... hell nobody checks books (my parents were really confused when I asked them what "fondle" meant in 5th grade due to a book)

So is that a problem children need to be protected from?

[Orogun01]

Still oro, it's not like a parent, even a gaming parent, is going to play an entire game just because their kid wants it an d they want to make sure it's "safe".

You really don't even have to play a game to know the difference between Mario Galaxy and Resident Evil. Basically games and movies appeal to preconceptions, we all have them about upcoming games and genres. We only need to look at a video of the gameplay, the game cover, or the ads to know what game is unsuitable to kids. The problems is actually picking a game that is both entertaining and fit for children.