Jon Stewart kombats mortally with Supreme Court decision

@The Cole Train It's pretty silly. Jon Stewart recently picked a fight with Fox News about their accuracy, and instead of going tit-for-tat and defending their record, Fox is digging out clips of him doing silly voices while making fun of a black person. Even though silly voices are one of his standards for making fun of people.

@Ezio Auditore da Firenze

I heard Fox News had absolutely nothing to do with this article.

@Ezio Auditore da Firenze

Ya know, I never took you to being a right leaning kind of guy. I'm a little surprised.

I mean, it's cool. Whatever cooks your rice.

@PreGHz
Are you implying there's something wrong with being right leaning? Or is being left the only pure sanctity left on this green Earth?

Seriously though, I'd like to congratulate Netherrealm Studios for once again making MK the gold standard in video game violence.

@Special Agent Steve Defending fox news =/= being right leaning. And that's coming from a leftie.

@Special Agent Steve
It's a little unfortunate you're being downvoted, because there's nothing wrong with either side of the political spectrum as long as you're well-informed about your opinions (which far too many people aren't).

And I'm pretty sure Ezio was just making fun of the OP, not defending Fox News. Defending any cable news channel indicates that you're a personal-belief-reinforcing non-thinker, because all any of them do (left or right) is pander to what their audience wants to hear. Most people don't want their ideas challenged, because then they might actually learn something.

@Special Agent Steve

I wrote four short sentences, and somehow you seemed to miss the last two?

"I mean, it's cool. Whatever cooks your rice."

@Saladfork America isn't half as bad about this as Australia is

especially since the bill didn't actually pass

@Saladfork
In which Region of the world are you located in?

@Aanx
I live in Alberta, Canada. There are no restrictions on game buying besides M-rated games having to be sold to people at least 17 years old (And even then, it's not like buying liquor - nobody's going to ID you).

@Vuvuzelas
True. between the censorship and ridiculous cost of games, it must be difficult being an Australian gamer.

@Saladfork
I agree with you. Really, as the left-leaning guy Jon Stewart is he should be supporting personal liberty and saying that this ruling is an indication that the restriction of sexual material is also unconstitutional. Of course the US is far too bonkers about puritanical beliefs to ever see the logic in that. I boggles my mind sometimes how people lose it over "nip slips" and the like.

@Saladfork

Those are the same requirements for the United States. Again, the bill did NOT pass.

@jtsuth
Yes, I know, and I'm glad to hear that.

@EtherealMoon

Well, that is the basis of making an argument, so yeah...

This outcome puts the responsibility back on the parents where it belongs.'

I wish John Stewart had mentioned that the ESRB will still have ratings on games.

@Yuutuu
Games are still regulated by the ESRB and policies governing sale to minors are still in place. It's just not illegal. Much like how the sale of a Penthouse magazine to a 10 year old is regulated but not illegal. Parents are still expected to do their part by doing research on game content before purchasing a game for their kid, learning about the ESRB ratings and monitoring what their kids play. Exactly the same thing a good parent does with movies and other such media.

@Yuutuu

Yeah, just like the movie industry, games are self regulated.

@Rakeesh It's illegal to sell porn to a minor, just like alcohol and cigarettes.

@sicksteanein And that's what the industry it trying to avoid in order to not be lumped in with them.

I think it's a bit hypocritical to point this out, yet there's no regulation on things like the Saw movies which are exactly the same, except more realistic, especially when Stewart himself is a gamer.

I guess becoming a parent makes you see things differently, but I always figured Stewart was smarter than someone who would fall for a clear cut BS tactic like "it's for the children".

@Yuutuu

I agree. It's odd that we can tolerate games like Mortal Kombat, No More Heroes, Bulletstorm, Duke Nukem, or MadWorld, but topless chicks make the moral guardians go apeshit

@Mr Khan Tolerated is probably particularly apt for Duke Nukem, and just barely.

@onan No he's pointing out the failure in logic in preferentially banning one inappropriate thing for children over the other when by most reasonable estimations a little nipslip is probably less affecting for a child than Noob Saibot's fatality.

@houser You have to understand how the government thinks; they can punish people for committing acts of violence but they have limited control on sexual norms and behaviors. Seeing sex or some deviant version of it can alter his perception and open up a world of possibilities for him that would supersede his supposed moral upbringing. A child will always fear going to prison so he would see it as nothing but fantasy and always follow the roles. Obviously, for society and individual violence should be more discouraged and not expose children to violent depictions but why bother? when parents can just tell their kids they will go to prison and get raped by Boba if they physically harm someone. Personally I support Jon Stewart's view and I think the supreme court made a bad decision.

@Lolthien Sure, but the game is also rated M. You can say the same thing about kids buying or renting rated R movies and Jon Stewart can show clips of Hostel and it would be the same debate. It's really violent and over the top but it's also supposed to be bought and viewed by adults hence the rating. It's the parents responsibility to not buy their kids these games or movies.

@Lolthien
I completely agree with you, there should be an enforced standard to keep these things out of the hands of underage users, but I just don't think government intervention is the best answer. It's one answer, but I think there are others to be explored first.

@Lolthien You're not the only one. It only seems that way because the majority of gamers always get up in arms whenever someone dares to pick on their hobby in public.

@Lolthien - The thing about free speech is that you've got to protect the morally reprehensible in order for it to mean anything. Free speech is free speech, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Does it allow people to say horrible, disgusting things (and create horrible, disgusting content)? Yes, absolutely it does. It's also the thing that allows the LGBT community to protest in defense of their right to marry, just like women protested for the right to vote, and minorities protested for civil rights. Without the right to free speech, none of those civil rights movements could have succeeded.

The real issue here is parental responsibility vs government responsibility. Does the government have a responsibility to keep your kids from objectionable material, or do you? Personally, I think it is absolutely the responsibility of the parents. It's been that way for years for movies, music, books, and other forms of media. There was (and is) no reason for the government to step in to parent our children for us, and thus the Supreme Court ruling was justified, IMO.

One of the podcasts I watch brought up an excellent point. During a conversation about how retailers and the industry already self police, and keep content from children, it was mentioned that this bill would have created a California state content board to rate the content in video games. Even if the ESRB gave a game a T rating, this board could have rated it M (or some equivalent) and barred it's sale to minors. Now imagine if other states adopted similar laws. There would be many different states, with many different ratings, for the same game. Think of all the tax dollars wasted, and the development costs incurred trying to get a game rated in each individual state. It would have been an absolute nightmare.

@Lolthien

I agree with Lolthien. Im feeling uneasy with all this "gamers have won" stuff. After Duke Nukem Forever quotes and MK clip, what have we won?

@BananaBoat
Though personally I agree with Lolthien, from an objective standpoint I get your point.
The point Stewart was making though is why that does not apply to sexual content as well. Why is that not simply placed in the responcibility of the parents as well?

Disembowling a woman? Ok for the 10year old!
But if there´s a nip-slip....WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH NOOOOOOO!!

I see something wrong with that.

@zkey14
Gamers are up in arms because there already is regulation on the sales of video games. There is an organization rating the games released and stores enforce sales to certain ages.
The law did nothing but cause trouble.

While Jon Stewart makes a great reporter, he's a comedian first and foremost. Saying that there was regulation already in place so children couldn't buy these games would have killed the joke of displaying the MK fatality.

@Kiichi - The hypocrisy isn't lost on me. It's a puritanical streak in this country that runs deep. The idea that sex can be had for any reason other than for the purposes of procreation, is still sinful to a great deal of people, as is the naked (female especially) form. It's bizarre, but it's just how things are in this country.

Wouldn't it have just added to the hypocrisy though, if the justices were to single out video games, in a world where a kid can legally purchase Saw, Hostel, or Showgirls?

(Remind me to rewatch Showgirls. To fast forward to the good bits, rather.)

@BananaBoat
Interestingly, the Justice Thomas made this point perfectly clear for me in his dissenting opinion:

"The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and EXPECTED PARENTS TO USE THAT AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN."

He then goes on to contradict himself immediately afterward, but this sentence really rang with me, saying it's absolutely the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

@Lolthien
As many others have said, creating extra legal groups to rate games means that you have more and more reason for political influence for the what games are allowed and what aren't.

Also keep in mind that while TV might be happy to show MK and Duke Nukem, the law would have outlawed ANY game showing killing or injuring the image of a person...

So wrestling, boxing, any shooter ever, legend of zelda. Do children REALLY need to be protected from the Legend of Zelda? Which of its 20 or so listed at ESRB one got T and the rest received Everyone....

@Lolthien Oh I agree he has a point, but there's still a bigger issue: Online gaming and peer pressure.

@ORTHROK Well, when you turn 22 or so, you'll smarten up and like him again.

@Hoops ill let you know next year

@Hoops

here we go again with the "you're not smart/mature unless you like the Daily Show" comments. what a load of shit!!!

@broken 4th wall

Or it's simply the very real statement that adolescents in an attempt to ape what they see as mature, without, you know that actual MATURITY that experience provides, often swing far wide of where they end up settling as adults.

This is a gaming blog, there are probably thousands of people here who can say they left some baby game behind only to eventually grow up realize a good game is a good game and came back to it. Heck that's I believe the story of Joystiq's resident Pokemaniac, Griffin McElroy.

@houser

nay, that's not it at all. at least, that's not what i am seeing here. what i see here is a legion of Jon Stewart stalwart's who instantly downvote anyone who says anything negative about the Daily Show, claiming that if you aren't a fan of it you MUST be a fan of FOX news. how hopelessly one-sided...i agree that ORTHROK's comment did not make the most mature stab at the show, but Hoops' snide rebuttal left a "holier-than-thou" taste in my mouth that i absolutely abhor.

i think the very notion of comparing the Daily Show with an old, favored video game that you fell out of love with only to come back to with heightened maturity is laughable. it's similar to saying "good TV is good TV," further implying that the Daily Show is, in fact, good TV. the idea itself is subjective. i'm a adult now and i never enjoyed the Daily Show, not even when i was fifteen. then again, it's not exactly providing the world with sophisticated humor, nor is it the "open-minded comedic spin to the news" that the proprietor of this article passes off as fact.

@Hoops

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
-Winston Churchill

@broken 4th wall
Wow, it's almost getting to the point that the Daily Show must be paying someone to downvote all the "I just don't like the Daily Show" comments, because it's hard to believe the Joystiq biomass is so close-minded about comedy, of all things. I don't think the Daily Show is terrible, but I don't think it's all that funny either. I also don't think Leno or Letterman is all that funny, but I understand that they are popular and don't hate everyone who likes them.