SCOTUS: Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Of I remember correctly, this is the day where the Supreme Court hears the oral argument from both sides. And just recently, Senator Leland Yee, who introduced the legislation being challenged, reiterated his support for it, even claiming that the ESRB is biased.

*bashes head against desk*

I hope the Moral Guardians don't win this case.

But his logic is sound... At least, I think so.

But he fails to include that the MPAA is also biased, and the California state senate are also biased. Based on the same logic.

Arguments are today, but the ruling won't be announced until December (January, I believe, at the latest). I don't see them overturning the 9th Circuit ruling. But it shouldn't have been called up for arguments, so who knows what the court is going to do.

The slippery slope bit  ^*

I really can't see this passing simply because it violates the first amendment. Of course there is the "think of the children!" mentality that destroys all logic.

^ Think of the Children! has rarely passed constitutional muster. Ever.

^ Abolition. And this.

And this.

^^ And in the 26 years since, we've had nothing resembling the improvements the Think of the Children! types said we would have.

Drunk driving is up since then, as are drunk driving deaths. (A friend of mine's older brother was killed by a drunk driver.)

If anything the age should be lowered back to 18 on a two-fold basis. 1) If you're old enough to fight, you're old enough to drink. 2) Like Prohibition before it, this little social experiment has failed hard.

But that might be a little bit off-topic.

edited 2nd Nov '10 7:31:47 AM by MajorTom

"Think of the children" is really the only argument that has been used and its made its way to the supreme court so it cannot be discounted out of hand.

edited 2nd Nov '10 7:38:02 AM by mikefrombrooklyn

But it hasn't been repealed. Hence, Think of the Children! is a real threat.

SCOTUSBlog Podcasts with attorneys from each side, Transcript, and argument recap.

I need to understand this issue. Is this simply banning the sale of M rated games to minors. If so how is this different from theaters refusing to sell tickets to R- rated movies to minors?

EDIT: Right state laws.

edited 2nd Nov '10 11:17:02 AM by RhymeBeat

Ratings are usually business practice, not law. This was a law based solely on content.

Legislating content fails the First Amendment test any way you phrase it.

This was proven in what was it 1937 when the courts got involved over the then relatively newfangled things called movies. The ruling basically said you can legislate when stuff is on, what price it is and regulations surrounding the presentation, but you cannot legislate the content.

For once, I agree with you, Tom. This is a clear-cut case of First Amendment rights versus New Media Are Evil.

I heard a blurb that the ratings on video games are enforced in stores when kids try to buy a game out of their age range - moreso than movies, even. So if the existing ratings system works, why heap more stuff onto it?

The "it's interactive therefore it's worse" thing strikes me two ways. I can choose to be a major butt-head and kill everything I see. Or not. It's my choice. I watch a movie, I have no choice but to watch what is on the screen. (well, I could walk out or avert my eyes, of course.)

Since when do Moral Guardians make sense?

Just finished reading the transcript of the case. So far the court seems to going for a law to prohibit sales to minors :(

No no no don't let it be another 5-4 decision with Roberts and company in the majority

Is it prohibit sales to minors period or without parent approval? Cause the second one is already in place in a lot of places.

Minors PERIOD!

Parent consent is not the issue here, nor do I suspect it takes legislation.

edited 2nd Nov '10 3:53:06 PM by WartysNeryon

You'd have to get a parent to buy it for you. It's not so much a law prohibiting minors from playing M games that bugs me, its the implication that video games are not speech, or even worse, speech not worth protecting.

My contribution to this discussion:

Harvard Psychologist comments on why California is so wrong, while taking a shot at hot coffee

JUSTICE SCALIA: What's a deviant — a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?
MR. MORAZZINI: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There are established norms of violence? MR. MORAZZINI: Well, I think if we look back -?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
MR. MORAZZINI: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Are they okay? Are yougoing to ban them, too?
MR. MORAZZINI: Not at all, Your Honor.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What's the difference? mean, 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? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?
MR. MORAZZINI: No, Your Honor. That's why I believe California incorporated the three prongs of the Miller standard. So it's not just deviant violence. It's not just patently offensive violence. It's violence that meets all three of the terms set forth in -? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think that misses Justice Ginsburg's question, which is: Why just video games? Why not movies, for example, as well?
MR. MORAZZINI: Sure, Your Honor. The California legislature was presented with substantial evidence that demonstrates that the interactive nature of violent — of violent video games where the minor or the young adult is the aggressor, is the — is the individual acting out this — this obscene level of violence, if you will, is especially harmful to minors. It -?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, do you actually have studies that show that video games are more harmful to minors than movies are?

I'm pretty sure the Moral Guardians are gonna lose and lose hard with that kind of case.

^ Yeah, I read the transcript too, and the state guy really didn't handle it well at all.

But trying to guess which way the ruling will go based on the questioning is always risky.

Round-up.

Sounds like it'll be 6-3 in favour of EMA et al.

edited 3rd Nov '10 10:06:39 AM by occono

EMA= good/bad? I'm not sure which side is arguing for which.