| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (8)

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 4:26AM sonicspike41 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Screw you California. You may have some awesome cities, make lots of awesome movies/games/music/etc., but screw you for trying to use games as an easy way to garner positive media attention from uninformed parents and citizens.

I feel like we're back in the past with everyone saying rock music is going to cause kids to drink, do drugs, have unprotected sex, and kill themselves. It's like the whole "parental advisory" thing all over again, except this time they aim to actually use the legal system to forcefully restrict content from people.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 4:30AM Peter Moore said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"We're very humble about our prospects before the court greatly. We believe we're on the side of right here," Gallagher stated.

--

He then bust out some watermelons and Sledge-O-Matic'd those Justices up real good.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 4:52AM tenacioustoaster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Remember that little piece of paper called the constitution? I think these people all need to go sit down with it and read it. Then maybe come back and drop the case because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And anyway, these angry parents trying to regulate videogame violence just need to stop buying the damn things for their kids. The largest demographic of gamers are 17 - 35 year olds. Don't make us suffer for your bad parenting. You wouldn't rent Irréversible for your kid would you? but I don't see you protesting movies like that..
Doesn't make any sense.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 2:01PM Wonderflex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@tenacioustoaster

Although I don't think they should restrict games I would like to point out that saying the constitution provides protection, or that it is unconstitutional. This is a comment thing said when game law is brought up, but sadly if you are using your right to free speech for the purpose of profit you fall outside of parts of the law.

If your primary focus is for profit, such as a video game, then how the right to free speech is applied can be determined at a state level. They are able to restrict when something is shown, where it is shown, and narrowly tailor the market it is available to, provided they don't require the change of speach and still provide a place for sale.

Also, if the court deems the need, special exceptions can be granted to further restrict any freedom of speech or expression on a whole host of things (slander, pornography, boycotted goods). Although this is most likely to never happen in the case of violent video games, as it hasn't happened with violence in television or movies.

You just can't "abridge" (as the first amendment says) what somebody can say, but that doesn't mean you can't restrict who can hear it, where they can hear it, where they buy it, where they sell it and so forth.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 4:59AM Stumblebee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Go Freedom Train, Go!

Hoping for the best here, guys.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 6:47AM JRMG said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, America is becoming more of a police state every day, so censoring video games, then movies, and then burning books, should be the next logical step...
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 7:17AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If the ESA loses this case, we all lose big time. We'd better hope that doesn't happen.
Reply

Posted: Jun 15th 2010 2:21PM Wonderflex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bah...should read through befor posting long posts:

*"Although I don't think they should restrict games I would like to point out that saying the constitution provides protection, or that it is unconstitutional, is a common statement when game law is brought up, but sadly if you are using your right to free speech for the purpose of profit you fall outside of parts of the law."
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW