BREAKING NEWS: Illinios Videogame Law Ruled Unconstitutional

[kevin_psx]

Aplogies. - So you're saying it's legal for 15 year olds to see NC-17 movies or buy porn vids?

Yes to NC-17, debatable to Hardcore porn. The difference is because of creative merit. John Waters movies are art (despite what somepeople think) but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit. Many have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna?

[Griking]

but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit may have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

But isn't this the arguement that the gaming industryis taking, that their games are forms of art and therefore protected? Who determines what is considered art and what has no artistic merit? Obviously somebody with the power to write laws made that determination in the case of porn. I'm assuming that the same people can make the same determination with videogames if they felt that was the case.

[njiska]

That's a matter for the courts not me. Hell i already live in a place with federal regulation.

[ty896]

but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit may have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

But isn't this the arguement that the gaming industryis taking, that their games are forms of art and therefore protected? Who determines what is considered art and what has no artistic merit? Obviously somebody with the power to write laws made that determination in the case of porn. I'm assuming that the same people can make the same determination with videogames if they felt that was the case.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'll try not to go too far offtopic...

This is why the current battle over the supreme court is so important. If W gets his way and Judge Alito is allowed to join with Roberts, Thomas & Scalia we will be only one slim vote from seeing all kinds protections disappear. For the sake of this discussion, I'll limit this to games, but it still applies to other things as well.

Remember that the one thing that all these men have in common is that they are all said to be "originalists", favoring a "strict" interpretation of the US Constitution based on the actual text of the document. This is said to stand in direct opposition to the stance taken by "activist" judges who are accused of "creating rights [such as privacy] out of whole cloth".

Now unfortunately video games are not mentioned in the constitution, it seems they were not to be invented for another 200 years. :/

So to answer your question, it's the supreme court that decides what is eligible for constitutional protection. They are the ones (past courts) who said that "obsenity", not "porn" (and there is a difference), is not protected.

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO.

We will just have to see if future courts maintain this freedom or if indeed the real "activists" get their way.

[njiska]

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO.

Bah hot coffee was just an example of how pathetic things have gotten in the states as far as morals go.

But if there is one game deserving of the title of obscene it's Custar's Revenge.

The game where you dodge indian arrows in order to rape a squaw. Terrible.

[Xizer]

Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna?

Porn in Playboy: The Mansion does have artistic merit, considering games are an art form.

My problem with this law is it places no responsibility on the parents, and in addition, it also fails to even mention movies, music, books, or all the other things that aren't restricted to minors. Rather, it focuses on video games themselves.

Not only that, I don't think I've yet to find a retailer that will sell M rated games to minors. I also disagree with porn being illegal to sell to minors...these forms of entertainment are not something which will harm a person physically. Do I approve of the bans on cigarettes and liquor? Well of course I do. That's because they ARE harmful. Media may harm some nutjob mentally, but that is not the job of the government. The majority will not be affected by these forms of entertainment. The majority rules. Well, sadly, it SHOULD, but as this country goes down the shitter more every day, it doesn't.

Summary: Stupid people suck.

[Griking]

So to answer your question, it's the supreme court that decides what is eligible for constitutional protection. They are the ones (past courts) who said that "obsenity", not "porn" (and there is a difference), is not protected.

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO.

Actually, I think that it would be easier to argue that some videogames are obscene than pornographic. Obscene can take many forms. To many people violence is considered obscene. And lets be honest, many of the most popular videogames are extremely violent.

[Mangar]

This is why the current battle over the supreme court is so important. If W gets his way and Judge Alito is allowed to join with Roberts, Thomas & Scalia we will be only one slim vote from seeing all kinds protections disappear. For the sake of this discussion, I'll limit this to games, but it still applies to other things as well.

I disagree with this completely.

For the record: I am about as anti-censorship as you can get. I'm a Libertarian, and when this was first debated I said the law would be called unconstitutional, and rightfully so.

The thing i take issue with is the misinformed view that conservative judges are somehow anti-speech. While you will often see Republicans and Conservatives complain and rail against violence and sex in various forms of media. It is only liberals and Democrats who really attempt to pass legislation banning such things. The Illinois law was written by Liberal Democrats. The most vocal proponant of videogame legislation is Democrat Joe Lieberman, and it's prospective Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton who plans on introducing federal legislation banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

Remember: What seperates the parties is this.

Conservative: Favours limited government legislation, and more individual rights. IE: Smaller Government, and much more personal freedom.

Liberal: Favours larger government due to a belief that our system is patently unfair to the lower/working classes, minoritys, and other groups. Also believes in the concept that Government can and SHOULD intervene to solve problems. IE: Government should regulate pretty much everything. A good example is Europe, where speech and videogames are TIGHTLY regulated. With many banned games.

Now with all this established: While i'm not exactly a Bush fan, i will happily take my chances with a TRUE Conservative justice as opposed to a liberal one. I read a lot of Alito's past decisions, and i do think he is a perfect choice and would have also found this Illinois law unconstitutional.

One other way of getting into their heads and seeing how they think is the Eminent Domain decision. The Liberal justices voted in favour of a local government being able to condemn middle class housing, take the property from the owners, and give them to rich developers to build condominiums for millionaires. IE: More Property Tax Revenue. Conservatives felt the complete opposite. IE: Personal Freedom over Government Power.

About the only thing Bush has done that is worthwhile, is his supreme court picks. Sorry if this is off-topic, but since a case like this will probably find it's way to the Supreme Court this decade - It's relavent to an extent.

[Tanis178]

i think DP needs a ethics/morale issues/legislation forum

[Xizer]

i think DP needs a ethics/morale issues/legislation forum

With the amount of crap going on in the world today, and involving video games, this wouldn't be a bad idea.

[ty896]

Remember: What seperates the parties is this.

Conservative: Favours limited government legislation, and more individual rights. IE: Smaller Government, and much more personal freedom.

This may have been a fair definition of conservatives 20 or 30 years ago, but the "neo-cons & christian fundementalists" that control the party today are passing the largest budgets ever, creating new entitlements & shoving 'Intelligent Design' down all of our throats.

And yes, I know we are at war, but I'll be damned if the 'Patriot Act' isn't most blatently Orwellian law I have ever seen. Although to be fair, it may be that it just bugs me; that every time someone justifies the PA with the argument "there is nothing here that doesn't already apply to drug dealers"; that nobody seems willing to point out that the Jihad on Drugs has been the one assult on our freedoms after another.

I will agree with you on the eminent domain case, the libs let us down. But as for protecting the 1st admendment, give me Ruth Ginsberg (and her long standing ties to the ACLU) anytime.

[Mangar]

This may have been a fair definition of conservatives 20 or 30 years ago, but the "neo-cons & christian fundementalists" that control the party today are passing the largest budgets ever, creating new entitlements & shoving 'Intelligent Design' down all of our throats.

I agree.

However: Bush's judicial picks are not Neo-Cons or Christian Fundementalists. They are strict old-school Conservatives, in the same vein as the traditional Conservative. His picks for the supreme court are about the only thing i can honestly say that i support Bush 100% on. They are suprisingly good picks. (Albeit Alito only was chosen because his first choice got laughed out of contention)

Ginsberg - Well you acknowledged that she failed on Eminent Domain. I'd suggest that you look up some of her earlier writings and views in regards to government and it's role regarding speech and censorship. She scares me, because quite frankly - Based SOLELY on her past writings and views, my guess is that she would have upheld the Illinois law. This is opinion, but one based on research and familiariity. I'm with you on drug law and such, but when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Conservatives simply have a much better judicial and legislative record.

[kevin_psx]

Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna - banned from minors?

Porn in Playboy: The Mansion does have artistic merit, considering games are an art form.

Then porn videos like I Dream of Jenna has artistic merit too - not banned from minors buying it. Agree?

[kevin_psx]

It is only liberals and Democrats who really attempt to pass legislation banning such things. The Illinois law was written by Liberal Democrats. The most vocal proponant of videogame legislation is Democrat Joe Lieberman, and it's prospective Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton who plans on introducing federal legislation banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

Nice irony. Liberals claim to support free expression - they are the ones writing laws to ban it.

[Xizer]

Then porn videos like I Dream of Jenna has artistic merit too - not banned from minors buying it. Agree?

I agree. I Dream of Jenna DOES have artistic merit. Porn shouldn't be banned from minors, either. What this country needs is something called parental responsibility. Instead we have crack whore mommy who is too busy waiting for the welfare check so she can buy some more drugs while her kid Johnny goes and steals a PS2 and manages to get scrape up enough money for Grand Theft Auto.