So the Supreme Court heard the State of California's arguments for legally banning the sale of violent video games to minors today. While a final decision won't be reached until next year, most of the Justices were highly skeptical of granting a First Amendment exclusion for video games. Justice Scalia in particular was very vocally incredulous. Some highlights:
California deputy attorney general Zackery Morazzini: So this morning, California asks this Court to adopt a rule of law that permits States to restrict minors' ability to purchase deviant, violent video games that the legislature has determined can be harmful to the development -Justice Antonin Scalia: What's a deviant — a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
Morazzini: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
Scalia: There are established norms of violence?
Morazzini: Well, I think if we look back -
Scalia: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
Morazzini: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -
Scalia: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?
Morazinni: Not at all, Your Honor.
Kagan: Well, so how do we separate violent games that are covered from violent games just as violent that are not covered?Morazinni: Well, Your Honor, I think a jury could be instructed with expert testimony, with video clips of game play, and to judge for themselves whether -
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?
Morazinni: Well, Your Honor -
Scalia: Does he convene his own jury and try it before — you know, I really wouldn't know what to do as a manufacturer.
Justice Kagan to California's Morazzini: You think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?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.
Kagan: It's a candidate, meaning, yes, a reasonable jury could find that Mortal Kombat, 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.
Scalia: I don't know what she's talking about.
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 —
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?
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.
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, 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.
Sotomayor: So what happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle. Is that covered by your act? Because they haven't been maimed and killed forever. Just temporarily.
Morazzini: I would think so. The intent of the law is to limit minors' access to those games.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
The intent of the law is to limit minor's access to those games. The ESRB rating system does that. When it doesn't, the fault lies with parents.Wish I could have voted for those Supreme Court people.
The intent of the law is perhaps noble, if pointless given that the industry regulates itself; the issue lies with what federally restricting video games to start with would mean in the future.
So I'm at work and reading that post aloud, and we're cracking up at the Justices basically snarking the hell out of their arguments.
Hint. If you don't want kids buying violent games...DON'T BUY THEM FOR THEM. I can't count how often people buy stuff like GTA for young kids, and I hate it. Be a responsible parent, damnit.
And yes, this argument is something of a big deal to me, for a few obvious reasons.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I'm guessing because she plays video games, and wants to be a designer. Or I just mixed her up with GK.One of you is Game Design and the other is Graphic Arts, right?
Also she works at Gamestop right now so the eventual ruling directly affects her in more than one way.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
What does a violent videogame do to a person who plays it? Other than entertaining him/her, nothing. I've played M rated games since I was 6 and not once have I felt the bloody urge to decapitate or shoot someone in reality. People who stress themselves by worrying about this crap makes me laugh.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'm Game Design. But she wants to use her Graphic Arts to do stuff like design game boxes and such.Also she works at Gamestop right now so the eventual ruling directly affects her in more than one way.
GK would be correct as to why I have a vested interest in the outcome of the Supreme Court's rulings. I'm a gamer, I'm a graphic designer who wants to work in the game industry, and I work in a game store.
Also because I'm a fan of free speech, and unlike most people who like to go "but First Amendment!" I understand what it actually means.
I also spent several years studying psychology before I went back to design. All of the so-called studies claiming that games cause violence in children are complete hogwash; none stand up to any real scrutiny at all and tend to leave out rather large pieces of important information. In fact, when I was still planning on going on to grad studies, I was intending to do some serious research into that sort of thing for my masters/doctoral thesis.
Originally posted by Sappho
have you guys watched those videos on youtube about that kid freaking out in violent rage?
Pretty sure they're fake.
Originally posted by Sappho
have you guys watched those videos on youtube about that kid freaking out in violent rage?
Did this kid hit a car with a baseball bat by any chance?