Supreme Court decision

[ChaoticLegion]

Source?
Discussion value?

Please add a bit more information which is correctly sourced if you wish to make a successful thread. Things like this may just annoy the moderators, just a friendly bit of advice

 

[Mr Thin]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously though, you actually posted this without a link?

It's not like this is your first post, you must have known that wouldn't fly.

I shall now take a break from being antagonistic to say:

"If it's true, woohooh!"

 

[Jman1236]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-game-banning-california-law/

WE WON!

 

[CorvusFerreum]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-game-banning-california-law/

WE WON!

By all gods, I hope this is true.

Seriously OP, Why?

 

[lvl9000_woot]

It is now illegal to bar the sale of a violent video game to minors.

You may direct your thanks to the Supreme Court. Of America.

[HEADING=1]And in other news, the giant Mass Effect 2 ad that pops up and covers half the screen is annoying as hell.[/HEADING]

yes it is. I'll be making a thread shortly.

 

[Jeralt2100]

It is true, if you want a link to the full 92 page decision rendered:

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

Looks like it was a 7 to 9 split in favor of striking down the law, although two of the justices filed a separate opinion from the main one which I haven't read yet. In essence though, it looks like unless new and definitive research links violence in kids to violent video games /and/ they can narrow down the law to a razor's edge, that basically no such law can exist constitutionally.

@dfphetteplace: Actually the United States Supreme Court heard the case last year, decision was rendered this morning at the start of their last week in the current session.

 

[fierydemise]

Heres the decision, I suggest you read that if you really want to get a sense of how good of a result this is. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Scalia's majority decision declares video games as non-unique with regards to regulation (at least with the current state of scholarly debate on the subject), that is you can't single out video games without hitting cartoons or movies. That is the absolute best result we could have hoped for. A nice takeaway from Scalia

Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas?and even social messages?through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player?s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

Also interesting is how much of a bullet we dodged with regards to the Alito concurrence. Had Chief Justice Roberts wanted to throw his weight around that concurrence or something quite similar to it could have been the majority decision and that would have been almost as bad as a loss.

 

[Meggiepants]

It is true, if you want a link to the full 92 page decision rendered:

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

Looks like it was a 7 to 9 split in favor of striking down the law, although two of the justices filed a separate opinion from the main one which I haven't read yet. In essence though, it looks like unless new and definitive research links violence in kids to violent video games /and/ they can narrow down the law to a razor's edge, that basically no such law can exist constitutionally.

Thanks for link!

I saw the article and it didn't really have what I wanted.

Pretty much went down as I thought it would. The liberal end of the court is going to consider it art, whereas the conservative end is going to be hesitant to levy these kinds of restrictions on a big business like the video game industry.

 

[Archangel768]

YES YES YES!!!!! As far as I can tell from this early stage is that we won.
More links stating it. (although some of the articles are quite short)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-violent-video-games-ruling,0,2550518.story
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=13939038
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-rejects-california-law-banning-sale-or-rental-of-violent-video-games-to-children/2011/06/27/AGqMKRnH_story.html

 

[mikey7339]

I am so glad about this. With the decisions they have been handing down lately I was legitimately concerned about this. Guess there was too much money at stake to go the other way. At least this worked in the public's favor for a change.

 

[Jordi]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

EDIT: or any other R rated game?

 

[tsb247]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

Let's be fair though... Duke Nukem Forever is a game that shouldn't be sold to anyone.

 

[Jimbo1212]

It is now illegal to bar the sale of a violent video game to minors.

You may direct your thanks to the Supreme Court. Of America.

And in other news, the giant Mass Effect 2 ad that pops up and covers half the screen is annoying as hell.

User was suspended for this post.(3 days)

Great news.
As for the bold - KGB mods. Say something against the website and you get banned. Ironic timing considering the posts by mods saying that they don't do this........

 

[Terminate421]

I almost couldn't click the article just because of the Mass effect ad. Seriously, why does this pop up?

 

[MysticToast]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

EDIT: or any other R rated game?

It means it can't be made illegal to sell those games to a 10-year-old. The restrictions on "M" rated games still apply.

 

[brunothepig]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

To you and all the others asking this, no. "the same protections", not more. Basically, everything remains as it is, from what I can tell.
OT: I really didn't expect much else, it was just too stupid, but still, this is a happy day.

 

[Chamale]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

Legally, yes. But almost all game stores have a policy of not selling M-rated games to minors. This ruling says that a state can't make a law preventing games from being sold to minors, but a store can still have a policy of not selling certain games to certain age groups.

 

[TheWeis]

WOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[artanis_neravar]

"Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States."

Sounds good.

But does this mean that Duke Nukem can now be sold to a 10-year-old?

To you and all the others asking this, no. "the same protections", not more. Basically, everything remains as it is, from what I can tell.
OT: I really didn't expect much else, it was just too stupid, but still, this is a happy day.

The ESRB, like the MPAA, have no legal force behind them. Any store can sell any game or movie to any person if the store chooses. Stores usually have their own policies against selling certain games or movies to minors.