X

Supreme Court vs. The Video Game Industry

Posted: November 2, 2010
Supreme Court vs. The Video Game Industry
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/49593/supreme-court-vs-the-video-game-industry/
http://images.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/253860_LGST/as20101102_theloop.jpg
Video_49593

Kevin Pereira talks to Adam Sessler who reports live from Washington, DC about the Supreme Court case about the regulation of video games, the freedom of speech and how this will affect gamers all over the country.

Comments are Closed

  • OcelotFox

    Very good description of the events Mr. Sessler, I'm glad you were there to actually hear the oral arguments and the responses to justices' questions live. A lot of the tone of their questions gets lost in these transcripts, and the oral recordings usually take a few days to filter out onto the Supreme Court website. But as always, the justices could have been asking questions to help give more credence out their own opinions and counterarguments, so we really have no way of knowing how this is going to get resolved.

    Posted: November 2, 2010 10:15 PM
    OcelotFox
  • Pwnproof

    HELL NO, Kev should have been the one there asking the questions!

    Posted: November 2, 2010 9:42 PM
    Pwnproof
  • Mad-Slick

    Hey guys, if worst comes to just move to Canada.

    Posted: November 2, 2010 8:29 PM
  • DeamonBeast

    i am confused about something, they say this law is for the games with interactive violence, but what about games like saw, you have a puzzle and if you fail it then you see an extremely gory video of you dieing, it is not interactive but it is more graphic then anything you can do on gta. and then what about interactive movies? a friend of mine had one and it had a couple good ending and a few twisted ones, but it is more of a movie then a game, where does it fall? then there is also the interactive part, a video game is only as violent as the person playing makes it. yes in gta you can go robbing people and killing get hookers and all that, but you can also be a cabbie, ems driver, policeman or even a fire fighter. i just do not see how it is even possible to ignore all of that, i mean the definition of interactive (defined by Merriam-Webster) "involving the actions or input of a user; especially : of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer) that involves a user's orders (as for information or merchandise) or responses (as to a poll)"
    with a definition that vague anything could fall under the term "interactive violence "

    Posted: November 2, 2010 8:04 PM
    DeamonBeast
  • AnonymousZombie

    I'm so tired of the government trying to raise my chlid like I'm too stupid to do it myself.

    Posted: November 2, 2010 7:25 PM
    AnonymousZombie
  • Fastthumbs227

    There's one thing I don't get with this whole debate: I already have to have my parent with me when I buy an M game. That might just be Gamestop policy, but I have never been able to buy an M by myself. One customer I remember got mad because they wouldn't sell it to him because he didn't look 40, and he didn't have an ID (like drinking, you have to be carded if you look under 40). So...isn't that what California wants? And if so, will it hurt the industry that much? How many people under the age of 18 can't get their parents permission?

    Posted: November 2, 2010 7:14 PM
    Fastthumbs227
  • Solidsnake19901

    They're just looking at games from the outside. When you look at it that way it's easy to exclude it from being a media for the people to use. IF they pass this law it will show the down fall of this nation. The only thing keeping this nation a float is our entertainment industry. If you throw that in the crapper then the country won't have ANY REVENUE. This WILL be the nail in the coffin for our economy.

    Posted: November 2, 2010 7:11 PM
    Solidsnake19901
  • AtlusCity

    Tyvm for posting this mrKelly, I thot I might have to miss out on todays Loop xD

    Posted: November 2, 2010 6:52 PM
    AtlusCity
AdChoices