The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2011, 05:15 PM   #1
Archer81
Optimum Homo
 
Archer81's Avatar
 
Tactical Neck.

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 22,731
Default Court overturns CA videogame law...

Court Strikes Down Violent Game Law
Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of the games industry


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the video games industry this morning in a case that called for the ban of violent games to children in the state of California.

In a 7-2 decision, the court struck down the proposed law, saying video games fall under First Amendment protection.

"Like protected books, plays, and movies, [video games] communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And 'the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary' with a new and different communication medium," said the court.

"This country has no tradition of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence. And California's claim that 'interactive' video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its out- come, is unpersuasive."

A PDF version of the court's full decision can be found here.

The proposed law was first signed in 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It opposed the sale of violent games to minors and could fine retailers up to $1,000 for each violation. A federal appeals court, however, blocked the law before it could pass, deeming it unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme decided in April 2010 to give the law a second look, making its decision this morning.


Games Industry Reacts to Supreme Court Decision


"This is a historic and complete win for the First Amendment and the creative freedom of artists and storytellers everywhere. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we have always known – that free speech protections apply every bit as much to video games as they do to other forms of creative expression like books, movies and music," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, which represents the U.S. computer and video game industry.

"The Court declared forcefully that content-based restrictions on games are unconstitutional; and that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children."

"We are thrilled by today's news," added Jennifer Mercurio, VP & General Counsel of the Entertainment Consumers Association.

"We had hoped that we would see this decision, and it's been a long time coming. That being said, there will probably be one or two legislators who attempt to test these new parameters, and the ECA will continue to fight for the rights of entertainment consumers."

California State Senator Leland Yee, the author of the law, expressed disappointment in the court's ruling.

"Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children," Yee said in a statement. "As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.

"While we did not win today, I am certain that this eight year legislative and legal battle has raised the consciousness of this issue for many parents and grandparents, and has forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games," he added.

"Every major national medical association – including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics – has concluded that exposure to violent video games causes an increase in aggressive behavior, physiological desensitization to violence, and decrease pro-social behavior," said Yee. "Thus, society has a direct, rational and compelling reason in marginally restricting a minor's access to violent video games."

http://games.ign.com/articles/117/1179191p1.html

Awesome.


Last edited by Archer81; 06-27-2011 at 05:16 PM.. Reason: Court overturns CA videogame law...
Archer81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-27-2011, 05:49 PM   #2
NUB
Just Crafted
 
NUB's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,529

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Both of the dissents are fairly miserable, but Justice Thomas just has to be that guy as usual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas, Dissent
The founding generation would not have considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents.

What's really hilarious though is Scalia/the majority's response to Thomas.


Quote:
JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken towithout their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent. Our point is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS believes, post, at 16, n. 2, merely that such laws are “undesirable.” They are obviously an infringement upon the religious freedom of young people and those who wish to proselytize young people. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’s speech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto. In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (JUSTICE THOMAS cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional. This argument is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS asserts, “circular,” ibid. It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid.
NUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 06:09 PM   #3
UberBroncoMan
Your Local Nostradamus
 
UberBroncoMan's Avatar
 
Wut

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,153

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Nathaniel Irvig
Default

Good stuff. The law was ****ing stupid, and considering it came from/backed by Arnold, hilarious. The dude had no issues advertising a ****ing Terminator 2 game for kids out there in the 90's. Guess what, the film was rated R.
UberBroncoMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 06:14 PM   #4
UberBroncoMan
Your Local Nostradamus
 
UberBroncoMan's Avatar
 
Wut

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,153

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Nathaniel Irvig
Default

Oh, and Leland "government should raise our children" Yee can go **** right off.
UberBroncoMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 06:21 PM   #5
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

It's good to see. Tell gov't to f off.

But, on that note, I saw two 13 year old-ish girls in Bad Teacher. Why would you take young girls to that kind of movie? Boobs and a chick acting like a gold digging whore. Gov't shouldn't run our lives but people should be smarter.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 07:02 PM   #6
Archer81
Optimum Homo
 
Archer81's Avatar
 
Tactical Neck.

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 22,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
It's good to see. Tell gov't to f off.

But, on that note, I saw two 13 year old-ish girls in Bad Teacher. Why would you take young girls to that kind of movie? Boobs and a chick acting like a gold digging whore. Gov't shouldn't run our lives but people should be smarter.

Ultimately its up to the parents to monitor or give the ok for what their kids can see or do. Not a city council, county commissioner, governor, congress or president. My parents were ok with Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct and letting us watch Full Metal Jacket and Platoon. My aunt considered ghostbusters witchcraft and thought thundercats was too violent.

To each their own.

Archer81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 07:16 PM   #7
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhcyennek81 View Post
Ultimately its up to the parents to monitor or give the ok for what their kids can see or do. Not a city council, county commissioner, governor, congress or president. My parents were ok with Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct and letting us watch Full Metal Jacket and Platoon. My aunt considered ghostbusters witchcraft and thought thundercats was too violent.

To each their own.

Absolutely agreed. If parents want to make dumb decisions, it should be their right. The difference is that I think they shouldn't do something while government tries to force it upon them and punish anyone who defies their order.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2011, 08:43 PM   #8
Goobzilla
Lights Out B***h!
 
Goobzilla's Avatar
 
BA-ZING!!

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wellington
Posts: 6,462

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mitch Erickson
Default

What about the Supreme Court ruling on Ghostbusters? Is our long national nightmare nearly at an end?
Goobzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 09:12 AM   #9
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,752

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhcyennek81 View Post
Ultimately its up to the parents to monitor or give the ok for what their kids can see or do. Not a city council, county commissioner, governor, congress or president. My parents were ok with Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct and letting us watch Full Metal Jacket and Platoon. My aunt considered ghostbusters witchcraft and thought thundercats was too violent.

To each their own.

are you saying its not?
tsiguy96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 09:23 AM   #10
Kaylore
4 time AFCW Champs
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
12 straight road division wins

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

They should never have appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling 7-2, with ironically only the most conservative and most liberal judge both disagreeing. That right there tells you it was a stupid law.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 10:00 AM   #11
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,138

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Parents need to mind their children and police their activities....if you can't do that as a parent then you should not be a parent because you have no idea on how to raise-up a child.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top 50 Sci-Fi TV shows... Archer81 Orange Mane Central Discussion 130 04-03-2011 03:40 PM
Oh snap... Archer81 Orange Mane Central Discussion 6 03-02-2011 09:24 PM
Favorite Game Console Poll Archer81 Orange Mane Central Discussion 46 02-28-2011 10:31 PM
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim gameplay trailer Archer81 Orange Mane Central Discussion 22 02-24-2011 04:03 PM
What really grinds my gears and other fantastic things... Archer81 Orange Mane Central Discussion 289 02-21-2011 11:54 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Denver Broncos