free hit counters
The Process Forum - View Single Post - Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games
View Single Post
Unread 11-02-2010   #44
Clickme
Tiny Lesbian Cat approves
 
Clickme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Still moving forward.
Posts: 15,969
Re: Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

Yeah. Some of hte highlights from the highlights:



[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?]

==============

[Kagan: Suppose a new study suggested that movies were just as violent. Then, presumably, California could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games?

Morazzini: Well, Your Honor, there is scientific literature out there regarding the impact of violent media on children. In fact, for decades, the President, Congress, the FTC, parenting groups, have been uniquely concerned with the level of violent media available to minors that they have ready access to.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: I don't think; is that answering Justice Kagan's question? One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?

Morazzini: No —]

======================

[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.

Morazinni: Justice Scalia, I am convinced that the video game industry will know what to do. They rate their video games every day on the basis of violence. They rate them for the intensity of the violence.]

==============

[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.]


============


More can be read here: http://kotaku.com/5679655/highlights...ideo-game-case

and in all fairness they are jsut as hard o the video game industry in questioning, but the video game supporters have much better answers lol.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Raptor-Jesus is the way to go.
That meteor made absolutely sure that He died for our sins.
.................................................. ......The shattered dreams that make you whole...
...broken hopes that bind your wounds...
..........................there is a purpose to this darkness
__________________________________________________ Can you believe in this?
Clickme is offline   Reply With Quote