june gloom on 3/11/2010 at 23:03
I'M ALWAYS FURIOUS BITCH
sometimes just less so
SubJeff on 3/11/2010 at 23:08
Back on topic dickheads.
That was a great read over at RPS. I'm pleasantly surprised at the sense that was coming out there and it was zing zing zing yes indeed. Of course there isn't a conclusion to this yet but I with that amount of :rolleyes: at this idea I can't see the anti-game lobby making any headway.
What I struggle to understand is; given it's so obvious these are the arguments against this law you'd have thought that the supporters of it would have answers to these questions. And wtf is their problem anyway? What is with the anti-game crusade? You just know these guys have entire HDs full of "taboo" porn anyway.
catbarf on 4/11/2010 at 01:09
Great news for the games industry and common sense everywhere, but the constant interruption and one-upmanship on the part of the justices was a little dishonest in terms of letting all sides present their cases.
demagogue on 4/11/2010 at 01:35
Well, I can't resist giving a lawyer's perspective on this.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Great news for the games industry and common sense everywhere, but the constant interruption and one-upmanship on the part of the justices was a little dishonest in terms of letting all sides present their cases.
Keep in mind they wrote 100 page briefs presenting their whole case that the justices have already read. The point of oral argument is just to answer questions that the Justices still have, and it's the only thing that they're going to listen to anyway. They just want their little question answered and they're outtie.
As for the one-upmanship ... another thing weird about the Roberts court is that the justices don't deliberate together before making their individual decisions... So oral argument ends up the only chance they really have to "talk to" each other, through the questions. They aren't so much trying to zing the lawyer as make a point to some other justice and bend their thinking.
Then what's interesting about this case is you see how for a lot of cases the conservative and liberal justices actually share most of their thinking. A lot of cases will get a unanimous or near vote. There's this perception that they're always at each others' throats and can't agree on anything and split every vote, but that's just a few cases. Here both sides are pretty much on the side of free speech and worrying a lot about the law's vagueness and inconsistency.
Mingan on 4/11/2010 at 01:37
As long as they keep sniping everybody, I don't see the unfairness.
SeriousCallersOnly on 4/11/2010 at 15:00
I don't give a shit about violence in video games. In fact i think it would be a definitive incline of video games if violence would be "banned" so they have to find other game systems.
I'd be a lot more hesitant to admire the court that has just sold your "democracy" (what was left of it anyway) down the river with removing the "contributions" limits to political campaigns by companies.
Talk about missing the forest for (a corporate sponsored) tree.
demagogue on 4/11/2010 at 16:37
Quote Posted by SeriousCallersOnly
In fact i think it would be a definitive incline of video games if violence would be "banned" so they have to find other game systems.
I'd feel better about this idea if it were self-imposed discipline rather than some government agency telling them how to make games.
DDL on 4/11/2010 at 17:44
I'm still puzzling over "definitive incline"... :-/
Seriously though, the bit with the vulcans was gold. "They're not people!"
I was really hoping one of them would ask something along the lines of "So if the characters suffering violence are depicted as not actually human, but..say...some sort of virtual representation of a human -perhaps..a computer game character, for instance-, then you're ok with the violence?"
Shadowcat on 5/11/2010 at 07:49
[ATTACH]700[/ATTACH]
Aerothorn on 8/11/2010 at 01:27
Actually read through all the oral arguments. Fun stuff. Pretty straightforward, except that I couldn't tell whether Roberts actually thought Postal 2 was representative of any real portion of video games, or whether he was just arguing with the most extreme example to see what Smith would say.
