That being said, I'm not defending GB's reaction to it on the podcast. I think it is pretty hypocritical, as you say. What it really does is answer the question that Jeff raises in the podcast, asking why wouldn't you just let your political views be known? Let's just be frank here... This is "news" because it is at the very least anti-Clinton if not fully blown pro-Trump. If this were the other way around, this wouldn't have been a blip on the radar. Actually, he might even get public praise for it.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed and was disappointed by the inconsistency in how some members of the crew treated the two cases.
I think the first best option is to just avoid political discussion on the podcast since it is always a drag. Failing that it would be nice if there was some effort to have representatives from across the spectrum. Clearly the progressive side is represented by Brad, Alex, Austin and Patrick when they were here, etc. and that is cool, but there are other views. That doesn't mean they need to bring on one of those alt-right a-holes but there are plenty of thoughtful people who are to the right of the crew. You don't need to hire someone for their politics (that would suck) but you can bring on guests from time to time. That said, I would prefer to just avoid the politics.
@billymaysrip: I think it's important to distinguish between what the games industry owes Scalia and what individuals who work in the industry think of his broader jurisprudence (and what that jurisprudence actually was, not the caricature that is often portrayed). The make up of the games industry is not static, it used to be more "conservative" (broadly defined and relatively speaking) and it may become so again, or it may become even more progressive such that the current incumbents are see as the reactionaries. Regardless, the industry itself now enjoys broad protection for its function (making games).
If the Beastcast wants to have a debate on Scalia and originalist philosophy that is fine, though they should probably include a supporter out of fairness. As it was I thought the discussion was incomplete and a bit over the top.
@alex: you not liking Scalia is fine, but as I mentioned before I think saying "he just came down on the right side" unfairly minimizes how much he did to make it come down that way. Could another justice have done as good a job? Maybe, that is unfalsifiable, but we do know Scalia wrote a strong opinion that provided Videogames with full rights, not a lesser opinion leaving the door open to a death by 1000 cuts. For anyone who hasn't read it already here is the transcript from the oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf
Maybe folks won't be impressed, but he does an excellent job of showing the stakes and how video games are art and speech and entitled to the same protections.
@billymaysrip: the argument that any justice could have written Brown as well as Scalia is unfalsifiable. Maybe they could have, maybe not, but it isn't just the conference that matters. There is good evidence to suggest that at least Kagan was wavering and it was in no small part due to Scalia's work and questioning of California's argument that helped get her on the the right side: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/07/elena_kagan_reveals_the_supreme_court_came_close_to_allowing_video_game.html
Secondly, we need to stop thinking of this stuff as a left/right dynamic. Lots of "progressives" love censorship (Leeland Yee et al) and lots of conservatives oppose it, and vice versa. Likewise Scalia was (for example) far more pro (generally poor) defendant on certain criminal justice matters than his progressive colleagues while less so on others. The distinction was a nuanced one relating to constitutional construction, and it is fine to disagree, but to reduce things to liberal/conservative in the way they used it is to miss the argument.
@jakeyjake: I would read the opinion and notice how he grounds video games, and the right of people to play them, as part of an unbroken line with all other forms of art. This wasn't a mere technicality or arguing that the CA law just went a little too far. It put Videogames on the same level and entitled to the same constitutional protections as Shakespeare.
Secondly read the general commentary from people like Ginsburg and Kagan (both hard left) on how brilliant and persuasive Scalia was. On a lot of issues like speech and the procedural rights of defendants Scalia was able to bring together more durable and successful coalitions than would otherwise be possible and transcend simple partisan lines.
The Scalia discussion was disappointingly unsophisticated and showed a real lack of understanding for how the Supreme Court works and just how important Scalia's work was in getting video games the protection they currently enjoy. I get it, Scalia had wrong thoughts (though the idea that the video games industry's views are as homogeneous as Austin says is laughable) but this industry does owe him quite a bit.
TacosGigante's comments