Cez★
11-02-2010, 05:51 PM
http://www.astrobunny.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/wpid-haruhi-stare.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/02/scotus.video/index.html?hpt=Sbin
"Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who under the control of the player must confront everyday tasks.
But it is how he handles these errands -- beheading girls, shooting police, and urinating on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
The justices Tuesday appeared genuinely torn as they heard oral arguments in the appeal of a state law to regulate the sale of such material to minors.
Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the state would in effect be creating a "California Office of Censorship" to determine what is violent content. "We should let the state do that?" he asked.
"Why is it not common sense to say to a parent -- if you want your children to see this violent material, then buy it yourself? asked Justice Stephen Breyer.
During the one-hour oral arguments, many on the high court appeared concerned the California law may have gone too far, but others suggested states might have some more narrow regulatory role when it comes to the sale of violent content.
Video game makers said the ban goes too far. They say the existing nationwide industry-imposed, voluntary ratings system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer games.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the Industry has failed to do so.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
The case is Schwarzenegger v/ Entertainment Merchants Assn. (08-1448).
pinche cali. wtf fgts. let people take responsibilty for their own shit
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/02/scotus.video/index.html?hpt=Sbin
"Postal 2" features the adventures of the "Postal Dude," an interactive video game character who under the control of the player must confront everyday tasks.
But it is how he handles these errands -- beheading girls, shooting police, and urinating on victims -- that along with other explicit games, has become a constitutional controversy.
Now in a dramatic Supreme Court confrontation, free speech clashed with consumer protection over these so-called "violent" video games and whether they should be kept out of the hands of children.
The justices Tuesday appeared genuinely torn as they heard oral arguments in the appeal of a state law to regulate the sale of such material to minors.
Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the state would in effect be creating a "California Office of Censorship" to determine what is violent content. "We should let the state do that?" he asked.
"Why is it not common sense to say to a parent -- if you want your children to see this violent material, then buy it yourself? asked Justice Stephen Breyer.
During the one-hour oral arguments, many on the high court appeared concerned the California law may have gone too far, but others suggested states might have some more narrow regulatory role when it comes to the sale of violent content.
Video game makers said the ban goes too far. They say the existing nationwide industry-imposed, voluntary ratings system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer games.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the Industry has failed to do so.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
The case is Schwarzenegger v/ Entertainment Merchants Assn. (08-1448).
pinche cali. wtf fgts. let people take responsibilty for their own shit