The past 24 hours, for those of you who haven't been keeping up, were pretty darn important for the future of videogames. The Supreme Court went through with its hearing for the California violent videogame bill, which – if passed – would put the ESRB out of a job and usher in a whole new set of regulations for videogames. The worst case scenario? The bill passes, and many games are more or less lumped in with pornography, leading to potential removal from retail locations altogether. So, what happened? How'd it go? Well, initial responses from the Supreme Court justices look promising. Some highlights (via
"If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales? Why are video games special?" - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
"What's next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Will movies that feature scenes of smoking affect children? ... Movies that show smoking can't be shown to children? Will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will. But are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
"One of the studies ... says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video [game]. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?" - Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Granted, a final ruling won't be made until June of 2011, so this is hardly over. On top of that, the justices are known for pummeling both sides of an argument with near-impossible questions, so their harsh volley against the California bill was nothing out of the ordinary. Also, as Gamasutra points out, the current justices tend to lean more conservatively, which doesn't bode well for things involving the entertainment industry.
So, the long and short of it? You may now take a breath and maybe even smile a little. But this was just a quick skirmish, and the war's far from over.
Credit for the obove: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/gaming_goes_trial_results_supreme_court_hearing
Other links:
Gamasutra):
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6191/video_game_regulation_and_the_.php
http://gamernode.com/news/9728-esa-confident-after-supreme-court-hearing/index.html
http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=142099
http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/US_Supreme_Court_Hearing_Violent_Video_Game_Sales_Case_106526093.html
Okay children your lord and god The mighty ken wicked here. less run down some truths & facts.
1. What's up with the current Supreme Court case? This is a complete violation of human and civil rights. This goes against the constitution.
The justices are hearing arguments about a California law that would prohibit retailers from selling violent video games to people younger than 18.
2. What defines a 'violent video game'?
The California law said the games have to be pretty darn violent to qualify for the ban. Options given to players must include "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being or animal." Now kid friendly mario stomps turtles to death and drops kupa in hott lava. is that violent? if we ban games whats next? Tv? movies? music? smoking? drinking? learning martial arts? This is the start of LOSS OF ALL FREEDOMS!!
3. Who gets to decide if a game qualifies as that violent?
That's a big question for the court. Video game makers are framing the argument as a battle over free speech: How do you determine which video games are protected forms of art and which are patently violent and offensive? A tricky case might be a violent game about World War II, for example. We already have the ESRB and that TOO MUCH ALREADY!!! Games are not adult and violent enough imo.
.
4. Did the California law ever go into effect?
No. The video game industry sued to get the law declared unconstitutional before it was ever enforced in California. Thank god! that was a big win for us gamers.
5. What's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's role in this?
In 2005, he signed the California ban on violent video game sales to minors.
6. Did everyone forget Schwarzenegger was "The Terminator"?
Maybe! But this brings up an important point. California argues these games are different from violent movies because they involve the players in the acts of violence. So, the argument goes, watching your current governor shoot people in a movie is fundamentally different from manipulating his movements with a game controller -- pushing the "B" button to make him end a virtual life, for instance. THE G'D M'FN Terminator is Arguing to ban violence??? Gimmie a break. hypocrisy is running rampid. He is appealing to certain groups to obatan votes and money. HE is A JOKE! the hypocrette has no business governing anything, not even the tv remote at home.
7. Do violent video games make kids violent? NO. They make me calm spo i DONT commit viloence with out them i would have snapped already. there a great outlet for stress & frustration.
Psychologists have been arguing about this forever. A "friend of the court" brief filed by those who authored and have supported California's ban lists 130 case studies on the subject and concludes: Psychologists imo are not only idiots but hypocrites aswell. Uless they agree with me ofcourse. FOR EVERY SOCALLED STUDY THAT SAYS ONE THING THERES ANOTHER THAT SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!
This is unconstitutional i URGE gamers aswell as rights activists to unite protest and FIGHT
this toioth & mail. This is the start of outlawing ALL Fun ALL freedoms.
Have a happy day Children
Ken wicked
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
GAMING ON TRIAL ALL OUR RIGHTS IN JEOPARDY
GAMING ON TRIAL ALL OUR RIGHTS IN JEOPARDY
The past 24 hours, for those of you who haven't been keeping up, were pretty darn important for the future of videogames. The Supreme Court went through with its hearing for the California violent videogame bill, which – if passed – would put the ESRB out of a job and usher in a whole new set of regulations for videogames. The worst case scenario? The bill passes, and many games are more or less lumped in with pornography, leading to potential removal from retail locations altogether. So, what happened? How'd it go? Well, initial responses from the Supreme Court justices look promising. Some highlights (via
"If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales? Why are video games special?" - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
"What's next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Will movies that feature scenes of smoking affect children? ... Movies that show smoking can't be shown to children? Will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will. But are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
"One of the studies ... says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video [game]. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?" - Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Granted, a final ruling won't be made until June of 2011, so this is hardly over. On top of that, the justices are known for pummeling both sides of an argument with near-impossible questions, so their harsh volley against the California bill was nothing out of the ordinary. Also, as Gamasutra points out, the current justices tend to lean more conservatively, which doesn't bode well for things involving the entertainment industry.
So, the long and short of it? You may now take a breath and maybe even smile a little. But this was just a quick skirmish, and the war's far from over.
Credit for the obove: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/gaming_goes_trial_results_supreme_court_hearing
Other links:
Gamasutra):
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6191/video_game_regulation_and_the_.php
http://gamernode.com/news/9728-esa-confident-after-supreme-court-hearing/index.html
http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=142099
http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/US_Supreme_Court_Hearing_Violent_Video_Game_Sales_Case_106526093.html
Okay children your lord and god The mighty ken wicked here. less run down some truths & facts.
1. What's up with the current Supreme Court case? This is a complete violation of human and civil rights. This goes against the constitution.
The justices are hearing arguments about a California law that would prohibit retailers from selling violent video games to people younger than 18.
2. What defines a 'violent video game'?
The California law said the games have to be pretty darn violent to qualify for the ban. Options given to players must include "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being or animal." Now kid friendly mario stomps turtles to death and drops kupa in hott lava. is that violent? if we ban games whats next? Tv? movies? music? smoking? drinking? learning martial arts? This is the start of LOSS OF ALL FREEDOMS!!
3. Who gets to decide if a game qualifies as that violent?
That's a big question for the court. Video game makers are framing the argument as a battle over free speech: How do you determine which video games are protected forms of art and which are patently violent and offensive? A tricky case might be a violent game about World War II, for example. We already have the ESRB and that TOO MUCH ALREADY!!! Games are not adult and violent enough imo.
.
4. Did the California law ever go into effect?
No. The video game industry sued to get the law declared unconstitutional before it was ever enforced in California. Thank god! that was a big win for us gamers.
5. What's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's role in this?
In 2005, he signed the California ban on violent video game sales to minors.
6. Did everyone forget Schwarzenegger was "The Terminator"?
Maybe! But this brings up an important point. California argues these games are different from violent movies because they involve the players in the acts of violence. So, the argument goes, watching your current governor shoot people in a movie is fundamentally different from manipulating his movements with a game controller -- pushing the "B" button to make him end a virtual life, for instance. THE G'D M'FN Terminator is Arguing to ban violence??? Gimmie a break. hypocrisy is running rampid. He is appealing to certain groups to obatan votes and money. HE is A JOKE! the hypocrette has no business governing anything, not even the tv remote at home.
7. Do violent video games make kids violent? NO. They make me calm spo i DONT commit viloence with out them i would have snapped already. there a great outlet for stress & frustration.
Psychologists have been arguing about this forever. A "friend of the court" brief filed by those who authored and have supported California's ban lists 130 case studies on the subject and concludes: Psychologists imo are not only idiots but hypocrites aswell. Uless they agree with me ofcourse. FOR EVERY SOCALLED STUDY THAT SAYS ONE THING THERES ANOTHER THAT SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!
This is unconstitutional i URGE gamers aswell as rights activists to unite protest and FIGHT
this toioth & mail. This is the start of outlawing ALL Fun ALL freedoms.
Have a happy day Children
Ken wicked
The past 24 hours, for those of you who haven't been keeping up, were pretty darn important for the future of videogames. The Supreme Court went through with its hearing for the California violent videogame bill, which – if passed – would put the ESRB out of a job and usher in a whole new set of regulations for videogames. The worst case scenario? The bill passes, and many games are more or less lumped in with pornography, leading to potential removal from retail locations altogether. So, what happened? How'd it go? Well, initial responses from the Supreme Court justices look promising. Some highlights (via
"If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales? Why are video games special?" - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
"What's next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Will movies that feature scenes of smoking affect children? ... Movies that show smoking can't be shown to children? Will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will. But are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
"One of the studies ... says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video [game]. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?" - Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Granted, a final ruling won't be made until June of 2011, so this is hardly over. On top of that, the justices are known for pummeling both sides of an argument with near-impossible questions, so their harsh volley against the California bill was nothing out of the ordinary. Also, as Gamasutra points out, the current justices tend to lean more conservatively, which doesn't bode well for things involving the entertainment industry.
So, the long and short of it? You may now take a breath and maybe even smile a little. But this was just a quick skirmish, and the war's far from over.
Credit for the obove: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/gaming_goes_trial_results_supreme_court_hearing
Other links:
Gamasutra):
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6191/video_game_regulation_and_the_.php
http://gamernode.com/news/9728-esa-confident-after-supreme-court-hearing/index.html
http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=142099
http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/US_Supreme_Court_Hearing_Violent_Video_Game_Sales_Case_106526093.html
Okay children your lord and god The mighty ken wicked here. less run down some truths & facts.
1. What's up with the current Supreme Court case? This is a complete violation of human and civil rights. This goes against the constitution.
The justices are hearing arguments about a California law that would prohibit retailers from selling violent video games to people younger than 18.
2. What defines a 'violent video game'?
The California law said the games have to be pretty darn violent to qualify for the ban. Options given to players must include "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being or animal." Now kid friendly mario stomps turtles to death and drops kupa in hott lava. is that violent? if we ban games whats next? Tv? movies? music? smoking? drinking? learning martial arts? This is the start of LOSS OF ALL FREEDOMS!!
3. Who gets to decide if a game qualifies as that violent?
That's a big question for the court. Video game makers are framing the argument as a battle over free speech: How do you determine which video games are protected forms of art and which are patently violent and offensive? A tricky case might be a violent game about World War II, for example. We already have the ESRB and that TOO MUCH ALREADY!!! Games are not adult and violent enough imo.
.
4. Did the California law ever go into effect?
No. The video game industry sued to get the law declared unconstitutional before it was ever enforced in California. Thank god! that was a big win for us gamers.
5. What's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's role in this?
In 2005, he signed the California ban on violent video game sales to minors.
6. Did everyone forget Schwarzenegger was "The Terminator"?
Maybe! But this brings up an important point. California argues these games are different from violent movies because they involve the players in the acts of violence. So, the argument goes, watching your current governor shoot people in a movie is fundamentally different from manipulating his movements with a game controller -- pushing the "B" button to make him end a virtual life, for instance. THE G'D M'FN Terminator is Arguing to ban violence??? Gimmie a break. hypocrisy is running rampid. He is appealing to certain groups to obatan votes and money. HE is A JOKE! the hypocrette has no business governing anything, not even the tv remote at home.
7. Do violent video games make kids violent? NO. They make me calm spo i DONT commit viloence with out them i would have snapped already. there a great outlet for stress & frustration.
Psychologists have been arguing about this forever. A "friend of the court" brief filed by those who authored and have supported California's ban lists 130 case studies on the subject and concludes: Psychologists imo are not only idiots but hypocrites aswell. Uless they agree with me ofcourse. FOR EVERY SOCALLED STUDY THAT SAYS ONE THING THERES ANOTHER THAT SAYS DIFFERENT!!!!
This is unconstitutional i URGE gamers aswell as rights activists to unite protest and FIGHT
this toioth & mail. This is the start of outlawing ALL Fun ALL freedoms.
Have a happy day Children
Ken wicked
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
