Schwarzenegger v. EMA

[lerath666]

I don't see it as a big deal, as long as it doesn't snowball into other ____. Kids will find a way, I know I did. But I agree with NAM. All of this starts at home, parents are the key.

That's BASICALLY the main concern about it within the industry. that this is the first in a series of slappywack style laws that take away the industry we love.

It likely won't. The worst thing about California democrats, and the main reason Schwarzenegger's bailing back to Hollywood, is that they can't even agree on something amongst themselves.

Yeah, i know, I've got a friend in lawschool who was going on about how this flies in the face of the first amendment, regardless of the "ways around it" built into the law.

So, likely, all this hulabaloo is pointless, but damn-it, i'm allowed to have my opinion on it

 

[DinoLast]

It's an offence to sell Games that are rated 16 or 18 to people under that age over in the UK, Most people over here in the UK have no problem with it. Yes children still get hold of them, but they can also get hold of cigarettes and alcohol. Having age ratings that are enforced gives power to responsible parenting

 

[Deak Starkiller]

Well said Dino...well said.

 

[Sachiel]

Top Game Companies Weigh In (last July)

Game publishers speak with a unified public voice when the issue is addressed: They fully expect the Supreme Court to side with the Appeals courts. To do otherwise, they say, would be a violation of the industry’s First Amendment rights.

Additionally, some believe the Court agreed to hear the case for a single reason—so it can put an end to the stream of similar lawsuits that have come up in previous years.

“We believe as an industry that the primary reason the Supreme Court is hearing it is despite the fact that this law has been struck down, [the issue] has come up 12 times [previously],” says Jack Tretton, President and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment of America. “I think the Supreme Court is looking at it to potentially see if there’s something to it or to put an end to it once and for all.”

"Gaming Bullies Need to Movie the _____* Aside"

The thing is, these guys [the ratings boards] have a tough job. Their duty is to help inform customers what they're going to be in for. But as a consequence, there are thresholds, and there's one threshold that retailers won't cross and that's the 'adult' rating. You can't be in that threshold if you hope to reach customers at all.

As a result, there is a line there, but it's a fuzzy line, an unclear line. All entertainment has this problem. Once in a while, pieces of entertainment, pieces of content, come along that push that line a little bit - whoever the body is that's supposed to figure out where it lies.

And when something pushes the line, when it tests the boundaries, it's important. It's important that it happens every once in a while. Because it's our response that tells us where the line should actually be.

If we find that culturally, we're becoming accepting of things, the line actually moves up further. If we react horribly to it, culturally, the line comes back in a little bit.

 

[lerath666]

Top Game Companies Weigh In (last July)


"Gaming Bullies Need to Movie the _____* Aside"

there is ALOT of truth in that second statement.

 

[thenammagazine]

there is ALOT of truth in that second statement.

The problem is the chicken littles start squalking at the first sight of chalk.

 

[lerath666]

*blink blink*

forgive me, i'm a little dense sometimes.

i do not get to what you're referring this time.

 

[thenammagazine]

*blink blink*

forgive me, i'm a little dense sometimes.

i do not get to what you're referring this time.

Referencing the quote. When the "chalk" is taken out to contemplate where the line should be drawn, people start screaming "first amendment violation!" without reasonably listening to what's going on nor taking the time to understand the who, what, where, when, why or how of it.

 

[lerath666]

Ah. I can see where you're coming from.

i also get the idea, and understand why some people are for this piece of litigation. My only issue is people like Jack Thompson (granted, he has been discredited by now, but others will come), who i fear will use this as a stepping stone to other things. MANY political pundits, idealist, lobbyist, and so on are opportunists, who might plan to use this to further their own ends.

but meh. this is the 12th time that it's been brought forward. I expect it to be blocked, again.

 

[Sachiel]

Transcripts from the case


PDF - https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf