Swoon over lead counsel's arguments in Supreme Court violent games case

Maybe you mailed in a ColecoVision steering wheel to California senator Leland Yee, and while we're totally behind the sentiment, it's not going to make litigating the case against violent video games in front of the Supreme Court any easier. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the newest feature on Joystiq: Joy Beat, where we just totally swoon over dreamy boys whose smarts (not to mention great looks) make the gaming world a better place.

Our first Joy Beat honoree -- who would look great on a wall collage, just sayin' -- is Jenner and Block LLP Partner Paul M. Smith or, as you may know him, the lead counsel for the video game industry in the upcoming Supreme Court battle. Not sure if Smith has the chops? Give Joystiq alum (and Smith superfan #1) Kyle Orland's GamePolitics piece a read.

Speaking last week at at an intellectual property forum at Chicago-Kent University (where were you?), Smith lays out his case with slam dunks like, "I've litigated nine cases in a row where states have tried to define the category nine different ways -- and they always lose when they make this case because violence is considered a perfectly appropriate and normal part of what we give our kids to see starting from a very young age." Guys, that's just where he starts! Why bother with the whole "court case" thing? Let's just give Smith his trophy, give video gaming its first-amendment-protection-for-life badge and get back to the Q4 avalanche of simulated murder!

This article was originally published on Joystiq.