Jon Stewart rips SCOTUS on CA game bill decision; forgets he starred in The Faculty

Warp Zoned writes:

"No matter how depraved and disgusting a comedy gets, it only becomes "offensive" or "inappropriate" when the creators attack something you love. Even a comedy show as respected as "The Daily Show" can fall into this trap. There are few men in America that are as beloved among young adults as Jon Stewart, but he just questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Brown vs EMA...

Jon Stewart is dead to me now."

[LtSkittles]

Actually, I think his point was "violent content," is more acceptable than "Sexy Content." And that it's a double standard. Americans love violence much more than they love "sexy content." "Sexy content," is more acceptable in different countries, and violence is frowned upon. I do think it's ironic that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the one who was backing it up.

[mousearmy]

First post absolutely nails it. Well done sir.

[malamdra]

I'm not from the States but I as understand it movie theaters can't allow minors alone to R rated movies but game stores can sell M rated games to minors? shouldn't it be the same for both?

also it applies to movies in physical media, it's just wrong that a kid can go to the counter of a BestBuy or whatever retailer to pay for a blu ray of The Hangover and a copy of Shadows of the Dammed and being told he can only buy the game

it pisses me off when people try to hold games to different standars than movies when it comes to artistic merits, entertaiment value, revenue numbers, etc, so it would hypocritic of us to demand a different standard on this issue

and I do believe that 11 year old kids shouldn't be sold Mortal Kombat or Heavy Rain if there's not an adult with them

[-EvoAnubis-]

Let me clear up your misunderstanding.

First off, no, a minor cannot buy an M rated game, anymore than they can buy a rated R movie. The MPAA (who rates movies) is NOT government regulated. There's no legal obligation for theaters to not allow kids into R rated movies, or for stores to not sell R rated movies to kids. It's self-regulating.

The big deal is that they tried to make games different from that, by forcing government regulations onto the ESRB, which is ALSO self-regulating, thus doing the very thing that pisses you off: holding games to different standards than movies and not treating them the same.

They failed, which is fantastic news.

[MaxXAttaxX]

Many people still believe games are a kids thing.

So even if a violent/sexy game is sold and given a mature rating, they think it's somehow being marketed to kids.
It's up to those adults and parents to not allow/buy those games to kids.

[JohnnyMann420]

Yup, that is exactly right. Too bad the OP is too stupid to notice. This wasn't about gaming in general. This was more around the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court. The OP claims that Stewart is dead to them now? Sounds more like the OP never watched Stewart anyways because they don't obviously understand him. I wonder if the OP is a Fox News watcher? lol.

[KingJFS]

I understand Stewart's point, he's just wrong. Pornography is considered "obscene" and subject to greater legal scrutiny because those people are actually having sex on camera. But a female military officer named Sonya Blade was never actually torn in half by the ghost of a man named Sub-Zero that now calls itself Noob Saibot.

And I never watch Fox News

[palaeomerus]

Stewart is a hyprocrite for using what he did to pillory the court while appearing in gory violent movies and on a network known for rather edgy content in their cartoons like Ugly Americans and Drawn together. That MK fatality he showed is essentially a 'shocking gory cartoon' that rewards a player who pulls off a finisher in MK correctly. It's also so stupidly over the top that it's funny to me. He naturally chose one where a masked guy is killing a woman to make it look "sicker" than it is.

The man is clearly being a hypocrite on this and and the people who are defending him are partisan ass kissers willfully ignoring the obvious.

This isn't about Fox News. It's about Stewart using cheap and dishonest arguments to make a very shady questionable point that makes gamers and game developers look bad and abnormal. In fact, it's EXACTLY the sort of thing that people tend to complain about Fox News doing.

The only stupidity here is those people who go out of their way to hate it when Fox does it but make ridiculous excuses when Stewart, Colbert, CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, NBC, ABC, or CBS does the same thing.

[KingJFS]

Thinking about it some more, it's very clear that Stewart either didn't read the SCOTUS' opinion or chose to ignore it.

Justice Scalia used his majority opinion to point out that every time a new entertainment format arises, a bunch of morons yell "Won't someone think of the children!" It happened with dimestore novels (the original "pulp fiction"), movies, TV, comic books, rock music and now video games. Scalia rightly determined that video games deserve as much protection as those forms of media.

Justice Alito's opinion sided with the majority, but he pointed out the exact thing that Stewart complains the SCOTUS didn't consider. Alito wrote that he considered it strange that sex gets scrutiny while violence gets a pass. He even said that future studies may prove that games are harmful to kids. But he also recognized that the law states that games are just a medium and cannot be regulated separately from movies or books.

Basically, Stewart pulled a Fox News and reported on reality as he sees it, as opposed to how reality actually is.

[LtSkittles]

I wouldn't say he's dumb just the point went over his head. The fact is Stewart never said "Violent video games should be banned," no, he said that it's funny that we live in a country that allows gratuitous, and over the top violence, but showing something that is considered sexy would be bad according to the U.S. Brian Crecente had the same problem.

http://kotaku.com/5817529/t...

[palaeomerus]

"Sexy content" is generally not regulated as pornography. Full frontal nudity including genitals with no other discernible purpose than to make someone horny and no artistic value is the usual 'local community standards' definition applied to pornography. Even then pornography is legal, it is just subject to regulation it how it is presented, produced, and sold.

[Charazani]

I don't think Jon realizes there is an ESRB rating system, and how stores and parents are supposed to enforce that. He doesn't understand the issue with the bill is that it may hamper freedom of speech, because any game could be a victim of the "violent" label and stores may not want to carry that particular game. Plus, using Mortal Kombat as an example of violent video games, makes people believe that the average game is that violent. Lots of misinformation regarding this whole thing.

[Silly Mammo]

+1 I like Jon Stewart alot, but I think he was off-base a bit on this one. On the other hand, Mortal Kombat...wtf?!?

[Yi-Long]

... to showcase just how ridiculous it is to allow this kind of over-the-top violence, yet panic whenever there is some kind of sexual content involved...(!)

I'm sure he knows all about the current system and how it works and about the freedom of speech and what impact a ban would have and such, but the joke is focussed on that hypocrisy by the judge saying extreme violence can't be regulated, but if there was sex involved, then they could step in...(!)

Personally, I'm against all forms of censorship obviously. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Very simple.

[RedSky]

"He doesn't understand the issue with the bill is that it may hamper freedom of speech, because any game could be a victim of the "violent" label and stores may not want to carry that particular game."

Thing is, that is a 'very' American notion of free speech. Most developed countries have legally enforced video game rating systems for years which have not been abused in any such way. Effectively it doesn't matter anyway though, and the main point here is the hypocrisy with enforcing legal ratings on sexual content - primarily to satiate the social conservatives with their dogmatic moral values.

[JD_Shadow]

Hmm...don't know what to make of the video.

For one, we have to understand just what the show is. It's not like the sarcasm of the show has changed. Stewart knows how to get a point across while being all out funny.

Secondly, I think John was trying to show the hypocrisy of the court that they struck down only half...and then highlighting the choking thing as a way to show the immaturity from all levels.

I LMAO at the Super Mario Boners, though! That was hilarious!

[Blues Cowboy]

I'm not convinced that "free speech" and "letting publishers sell and even pitch violent games to minors" is the same thing. I'm British, so I'm a little fuzzy on the bill's exact wording, but I think that there's a lot of financial self interest going on.

Besides, overly violent films get an NC-17/18+ rating, don't they? I know the two mediums are very different, but ain't it a double standard?

My point is, don't do the classic thing of immediately attacking anyone who defends the bill. Actually deconstruct it and try to see where they're coming from. This issue is a proper shade of grey.

[Dan50]

In the USA products rated 18 are seen as adult and here adult means porno even if its just violence it has a stigma of being porn just based on the rating. NC 17 films and AO rated games are both 18+ and not sold in stores due to company policy against selling adult products to anyone of any age. So if California's law passed just about all M and even some T games would be branded as "pornographic" so they would not be stocked or released on consoles. So to get an AO game or NC 17 movie released they are censored heavily and re released as M or R rated which are 17+ and thus "family friendly".

[bozebo]

"In the USA products rated 18 are seen as adult and here adult means porno even if its just violence it has a stigma of being porn just based on the rating."

:O

[dkgshiz]

I laughed at one of this guys jokes maybe once. He is probably the worst comedian I've ever seen. His show is beyond boring and they edit all the footage they use and make it seem people are worse then they really are. Even though its all just for laughs it still pisses me off.

[gamey]

You've got one of those outlier bell-curve opinions showing, dude. I just thought you should know. You've got an unnecessary hate on for a comedy/satire show.

[matti42]

stopped reading at "Jon Stewart is dead to me now."

[DevilishSix]

realise this the better. He promotes a left wing agenda, very wisely might I add, for bigger government and higher taxes, which means less freedom and liberty for you and me. Then when someone calls him out on it he hides behind a veil that its comedy. He is a hypocrit and the irony is that he is the real joke.

[tyty]

I have a question...do you think Fox News supports a conservative agenda or do you believe they report in a "Fair and Balanced" manner?

[hazelamy]

they follow whatever agenda give rupert murdoch more money and power, if that's conservative then that's who they'll support, if it's the republicans then they'll support them.

that's exactly what happened in the uk with murdoch's newspaper, i use the word news in its loosest possible sense here, the labour party weren't following policies that he wanted so he threw in with the tories.

i can't stand that this aussie who's only interested in his own power has so much influence in uk politics, what business does an australian have in trying to influence european policy anyway?
and i doubt many americans are happy about him having so much influence in the us either.

[radphil]

So you support Colbert Report but not the Daily Show?
=B

[ThePsychoGamer]

No, more taxes will not take from our freedoms, It just means a faster econmic recovery which means a lower unenployment rate.

[hazelamy]

kinda reminds me of the south park thing with isaac hayes.

how many religions did south park rip on?

but when they did scientology, oh boy.
scientologist are not known for the sense of humour about scientology.

it was a shame that was how his time on the show ended.

anyway, with regards to the bill, personally i don't see how making it illegal to sell mature rated games to children is a bad thing.
the ratings on games are enforced by law here in the uk and the industry doesn't seem to have suffered for it, i wonder how much that has to do with parents ignoring the ratings buying the games for their kids anyway.

however i wouldn't agree with a blanket ban on the sale of "violent" games to children, not without some clearer definition of exactly what they mean by violent.

most games are violent in some way, a blanket ban on any violent games would be bad.

i mean sure, something like god of war 3 is not something i'd like to see in the hands of children, but there are other games that have violence that are suitable for children.

i mean, hell, one of the most popular games that are aimed at kids is pretty much virtual cockfighting.
i'm referring to pokemon if you hadn't guessed.

would that fall under the vague term of "violent"?

[thisguywithhair]

The problem seems to be that there is no concrete definition of what is to be considered "violent" in the wording of the bill. As I understand it Sly Cooper and Duke Nukem could potentially fall under the same category if Sly Cooper is deemed "violent" enough.

What it come down to is that the law would have been very easy to manipulate while at the same time being almost impossible to fight against.