http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1448.pdf
THIS is funny shit. A summary of the Supreme Court case regarding Schwarzenegger's bill on violent video games. Arnold's lawyers got slapped silly. I haven't finished reading it, but my favorite bit so far is:
Quote:
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?
MR. MORAZZINI: No --
|
Or this little bit thrown out when arguing about violence towards people:
Quote:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?
MR. MORAZZINI: No, it wouldn’t, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.
|
Quote:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: ...does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant?
MR. MORAZZINI: Not that I'm aware of, Justice Ginsburg.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship. It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice.
|
Lots of other parts are great. The justices were pretty much all against this and the people arguing for the bill just got slapped around.