Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Help Defend Video Games In The Supreme Court!

(1/12) > >>

maxh:
Arnold Schwarzenegger, '80s action star and governor of California, has passed a law banning the sale of "violent" video games to anyone under the age of 18.

This law has been challenged and is now on its way to being tested in the Supreme Court. The National Youth Rights Association is currently working on an amicus brief to oppose this law, and we need help from the rest of the gaming community. We are collecting testimonies that detail the social, artistic, and especially political value of video games to prove to the court that their distribution should be protected under the First Amendment.

The media has been demonizing gamers ever since someone decided that Doom caused Columbine. Getting the Supreme Court to strike down this law and admit the value of video games would be a huge step forward in fighting these misconceptions. This is our chance to clear the name of video games and protect the First Amendment rights of young gamers. This could be the first step in government regulation of video games that could affect all gamers, regardless of age. Our brief is coming along, but we really do need your help. The more testimonies we have, the better our chances of winning over the court.

For more information and to submit your testimony, visit:
http://blog.youthrights.org/2010/08/11/schwarzenegger_v_gamers_help_us_fight_back/

Damnable Fiend:


seriously though, that article you linked to was almost entirely uninformative.  it didn't even give the definition of "violent video games" that your courts will be considering.  For all I know they could just be talking about hyper-violent games like Manhunt that kids probably shouldn't be playing anyway

maxh:

--- Quote from: Damnable Fiend on 12 Aug 2010, 16:16 --- it didn't even give the definition of "violent video games" that your courts will be considering.

--- End quote ---
That's because the law didn't actually define what that means.

Scandanavian War Machine:
I wouldn't worry too much about it.


It can't not be found unconstitutional because it's....surprise!.....UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To a ridiculous degree. Not only that, it's absurdly hypocritical because no other...anything (media stuff like books, movies etc.)...is subject to such a pathetically draconian excuse for a law.

It won't last long because there is just no way that it can. Besides, I thought people learned during the prohibition that banning things only makes them more dangerous.

also, Arnold Schwarzeneger is an ex-body builder and actor and I am astounded that anyone lets him decide what to wear in the morning, let alone OUR FUCKING LAWS.


hey, california! hey, over here! Nice work, douchebags! I hope you sink.


alright, during the process of typing this, I realized that there could be a great silver lining in this! After it fails (which it will) there will be legal precedent for this type of thing, making it so nobody else can try to replicate this farse in the future. hurray

maxh:

--- Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 12 Aug 2010, 16:47 ---It can't not be found unconstitutional because it's....surprise!.....UNCONSTITUTIONAL. To a ridiculous degree. Not only that, it's absurdly hypocritical because no other...anything (media stuff like books, movies etc.)...is subject to such a pathetically draconian excuse for a law.

--- End quote ---
True, but you have to remember that most of the SCOTUS justices (as well as lawyers on both sides) have very little familiarity with video games. That's the point of this -- to teach them about video games. It is much more likely to be ruled unconstitutional if there is social, artistic, or political value to them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page