Schwarzenegger v. EMA, the landmark case in which the state of California is petitioning for the re-instatement of a California law banning the sale of "deviant or morbid" violent videogames to minors.
Justice Antonin Scalia asked: “What’s a deviant violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game? ... Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim. Are you going to ban them, too?”
Justice Sotomayor: "One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny? ... What happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle? Is that covered by your act?"
Justice Breyer, creating, excuse the pun, a tortured metaphor about a 13-year-old playing video games depicting violence: "I have tried to take as bad a [scenario] as I could think of, gratuitous torture of children. OK. Now, you can't buy a naked woman, but you can go and buy that, you say to the 13-year-old. Now, what sense is there to that?"
Chief Justice Roberts: You "cannot pass a law that says you may not sell to a 10-year-old a video in which they set schoolgirls on fire." Quite what's going through Roberts' mind here is open to speculation.
источники:
Harper's Jan 2011 pg 21
nyt
slate.com
fastcompany.com
hollywoodreporter.com
escapistmagazine.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment