Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Means War Isn't Over

[UnusualStranger]

Didn't this already set a legal precedent? They can't just straight up change their minds, that's irresponsible.

The Supreme Court can reverse their own decisions. It's pretty unlikely that this court would do so, but a future court with a different set of judges could potentially reverse the ruling. It has happened in the past, though I believe that it's usually striking down something that was previously ruled as being allowed, and not the reverse.

That said, the majority ruling in this case is very solid and specific. That ruling was that video games are as fully protected as free speech as other forms of media. Five judges supported it, and it's the best outcome possible from the case.

The minority ruling joined only in saying that in the law as written "violent video games" and other similar phrases were too vague to be constitutional. Two judges supported this viewpoint, which is basically a "This one is bad, but you can go back and try again" mandate.

So it's possible, but not that likely.

At risk of somewhat sounding like a jerk....this really sounds like "BUT THE FUTURE IS STILL IN DANGER!"

Of course a future court could rule in another direction and shoot down this decision, but then that would be along the same lines of "separate but equal" court cases. At first it was happily embraced by all and the courts supported it, but then later on the courts changed their mind and "separate but equal" was shot down.

Overall, I find this examination of this case to perhaps to be a little alarmist seeing as how the ruling went so heavily in favor of video games. While it could be changed in the future, the amount of time it takes to get to the supreme court, and the amount of money and even ability of a law to get past the scrutiny of everyone is quite a bit to swallow.

I don't think we can usually declare a debate on any particular medium of entertainment "Over" (Heck, we still fight about having sex and a certain amount of violence on TV), but this will likely put the debate on an absolute standstill for a while.

 

[ryo02]

"and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands"

erm sorry but Ive never been made to feel that by a game Ive seen it and heard it but never have I actually felt blood splatter on my skin. seen and heard like you do a movie all I did was press a button and you do that with movies too when press play.

 

[McMullen]

I was hoping that the SC might have received an education in what games actually are during this case, but it appears that if any such thing happened, Alito missed out on it completely. In most games, none of what he said actually happens when a player kills an npc. In the most expensively-made AAA monuments to the gaming medium, into which thousands of people have poured the best years of their lives, maybe two or three of those things happen.

The lessons we take (or at least the ones I take) from games are not about what it's like to kill a person. Sight and hearing are not enough to convey that information. The lessons we take from games are actually quite similar to the ones we take from books and movies.

Know what lesson I took from GTAIV? Revenge is hollow and self-destructive. That other guy from Niko's unit, the one who moved on and tried enjoying his life? He's one of the only people in the game who is actually happy, while Niko ends the game having lost nearly everything important to him.

From Mass Effect? The world is a better place if one is not a dickhead. Not everyone can be Shepard, and so not everyone will make a noticeable difference for the world (or galaxy) but you can at least improve things in your own small chunk of it by following Wheaton's Law. Yes it's tempting to be a renegade sometimes (or often) but it's generally best for everyone concerned, including you, if you ignore those temptations.

Assassin's Creed? Don't be too quick to accept something as the truth, or reject counter-intuitive things as false (one of the many meanings of "nothing is true, everything is permitted.")

Saint's Row? Realism and seriousness are overrated, have some fucking fun every once in a while.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Never thought Scalia would be against this law and Breyer would be for it, but the other votes don't entirely surprise me. Kennedy was the one I was worried about, but unsure.

See, I would have been extremely surprised if Scalia had ended up supporting the law, considering how he acted during the initial arguments.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Didn't this already set a legal precedent? They can't just straight up change their minds, that's irresponsible.

The Supreme Court can reverse their own decisions. It's pretty unlikely that this court would do so, but a future court with a different set of judges could potentially reverse the ruling. It has happened in the past, though I believe that it's usually striking down something that was previously ruled as being allowed, and not the reverse.

That said, the majority ruling in this case is very solid and specific. That ruling was that video games are as fully protected as free speech as other forms of media. Five judges supported it, and it's the best outcome possible from the case.

The minority ruling joined only in saying that in the law as written "violent video games" and other similar phrases were too vague to be constitutional. Two judges supported this viewpoint, which is basically a "This one is bad, but you can go back and try again" mandate.

So it's possible, but not that likely.

More importantly, anyone bringing video game restrictions to the court has to frame their argument in a way that doesn't appear vague and makes a significant distinction between video games and film/print/images. While the interactive nature of the medium has been argued to be that which separates gaming from traditional art (very often by gaming enthusiasts, even), for the most part, the SCotUS views them to be indistinguishable from those traditional artistic mediums, granting them the special protections that come with it.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

It has happened in the past, though I believe that it's usually striking down something that was previously ruled as being allowed, and not the reverse.

The only one that come to immediate mind is the right to legal representation as fought for by Clarence Gideon in FLA. Whats interesting is not only did they reverse the previous decision, they ruled in Gideon's favor by a 9-0 vote.

I only remember this because we had to watch the Henry Fonda movie adaptation "Gideon's Trumpet" in law class in middle school.

 

[Zelda_Lover26]

This may seem childish, but the way I see it, a victory is a victory. Its true we may still have many more battles to come, but for now, lets us be happy for the victory we have received today.

The war may not be over, but we've taken a great step towards ending it.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I can't believe how close this decision was. I can't believe it. I'm so worried this could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. And this isn't just about games. It seems certain justices are intentionally leaving the door open to simply unmake what has always been the First Amendment.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

To take an example, think of a person who reads the passage in Crime and Punishment in which Raskolnikov kills the old pawn broker with an axe. Compare that reader with a video-game player who creates an avatar that bears his own image; who sees a realistic image of the victim and the scene of the killing in high definition and in three dimensions; who is forced to decide whether or not to kill the victim and decides to do so; who then pretends to grasp an axe, to raise it above the head of the victim, and then to bring it down; who hears the thud of the axe hitting her head and her cry of pain; who sees her split skull and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands. For most people, the two experiences will not be the same.

What a terrible argument. Allow me to modify that paragraph to illustrate why:

To take an example, think of a person who reads the passage in Crime and Punishment in which Raskolnikov kills the old pawn broker with an axe. Compare that reader with a movie who sees a realistic image of the victim and the scene of the killing in high definition and in three dimensions; who then sees someone grasping an axe, to raise it above the head of the victim, and then to bring it down; who hears the thud of the axe hitting her head and her cry of pain; who sees her split skull and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands. For most people, the two experiences will not be the same.

There's a difference between books and movies too, but we don't say movies aren't free speech. What if the book is written in second person and the reader is told they are committing acts of murder? Should those be considered less free-speech?

I can understand getting parental consent for video games . . . but not this.

 

[WeBeNukin]

Parents - Don't buy games that your spawn lack the maturity to play. My work here is done.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

To take an example, think of a person who reads the passage in Crime and Punishment in which Raskolnikov kills the old pawn broker with an axe. Compare that reader with a video-game player who creates an avatar that bears his own image; who sees a realistic image of the victim and the scene of the killing in high definition and in three dimensions; who is forced to decide whether or not to kill the victim and decides to do so; who then pretends to grasp an axe, to raise it above the head of the victim, and then to bring it down; who hears the thud of the axe hitting her head and her cry of pain; who sees her split skull and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands. For most people, the two experiences will not be the same.Uh huh.
Soooo what about a book written from a first person perspective with graphic illistrations and discriptions in a choose your own adventure style?

Or would that not be a book now?

Man I really want to write this now!

Spoiler: Feel free to PM me if this causes sudden outbursts of violence in readers

Kill old pawn broker? Y/N

Spoiler: Y

You pick up the axe and quickly raise it above the pawn brokers head, with a sickening meaty thud the axe is embedded into her skull. As she lets loose a bloodcurdeling scream and drops to the floor, warm crimson blood seaps down the axe handle and washes over your hands.

Spoiler: N

You walk home and play with some kittens or whatever instead. You silly boring person

I don't think i'll add any illistrations though, feel free to google your own if you've got the stomach for it

Seriously though this isn't a very good argument at all.
Also more specifically = "and feels the sensation of blood on his face and hands" this suggests the use of imagination and i'm pretty sure that can be used with books as well unless VR suddenly took off while I wasn't looking.

Edit: To be fair as the user above stated games are kinda different due to the interactivity but I think that could have been stated a bit better than the above example from the supremem court.

You're my hero for making me laugh. I thought that was a weird argument and I had to read it several times to see if I was missing something. I've read that book and what he's suggesting is dumb, maybe he forgot to add that the player would have an existential crisis later....?

 

[Mackie Stingray]

What he said

This is pretty much exactly what my wife was saying. You haz thumbs up. All conditions are green, you are a go.

Can anybody point me to a case in recent decades where a dissenting or minority concurring opinion was a solid basis for a reversal of a Supreme Court decision in a later case?

 

[CD-R]

The war's over. Maybe Roberts and Alito might sway, buy Scalia and others with any common sense will not. A 7 to 2 verdict would become a 5 to 4 verdict. Plus, passing these laws and bringing them to court is expensive. Californians should be outraged that their tax dollars got squandered on nothing. This isn't even a bridge to nowhere. It's just a pile of paperwork and lawyers getting paychecks. I hope my state (or any other) doesn't try and pull this crap again.

I'm curious as to how much money California actually spent bringing this to the Supreme Court. I think Illinois or something spent a million dollars on a similar law and it didn't even make it to the Supreme Court.

 

[Jodah]

The war's over. Maybe Roberts and Alito might sway, buy Scalia and others with any common sense will not. A 7 to 2 verdict would become a 5 to 4 verdict. Plus, passing these laws and bringing them to court is expensive. Californians should be outraged that their tax dollars got squandered on nothing. This isn't even a bridge to nowhere. It's just a pile of paperwork and lawyers getting paychecks. I hope my state (or any other) doesn't try and pull this crap again.

This, plus the case itself has to have a different issue of debate to even be heard in the Supreme Court again. Cases do get overturned, look at the black codes and racism for example. The thing is, every time a new case goes to the Supreme Court that could potentially overturn another there has to be a different underlying issue.

Basically this can't go in front of the Supreme Court again as a free speech issue because that has already been decided. Now a state could attempt it as a police power question or something similar. The defense can still use free speech as an argument, but the prosecution cannot.

 

[CyanLink]

No, young children should not play violent games but that does not mean that games should be banned if they don't violate any indecency laws.

Why is that so fucking hard?

 

[Dastardly]

Dissent in Supreme Court Decision Means War Isn't Over
Permalink

As long as it leads to legislation that focuses on informing parents, and putting the onus on them to protect their children, it's not a harmful road to walk.

This decision set a clear trajectory--games are receiving First Amendment protections, and it's going to be a lot harder to reverse that now that it has been established. Any laws that try to reverse it will probably be struck down, and any laws that follow it are really just helping to further define that fact.

 

[JamesBr]

In the end, I think this was the right decision, Who knows what the future will bring. The effects of video games of the brain at all ages is something that needs to be further researched. However, demonizing games because of a perceived effect is not good enough. Not to mention, censoring games for violent content is just stupid when you consider the vast amount of violent media we consume. Research should be made, but a moderate and reasonable approach needs to be taken, not:
"Video games are violent, lets use research to prove it"
"We couldn't prove anything"
"Fuck it. Nobody reads these research papers anyways. Let's just say they did and cause a big stink"