SCOTUS
Latest
Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest
Between the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions published in today's Supreme Court decision on Brown v. EMA, there's a good 92 pages of legalese for enthusiastic gaming activists to pore over. If you don't feel like flipping through a novella of legal documents in search of relevant, easily digestible bits, feel free to check out some highlights from each opinion, which we've compiled after the jump!
Senator Yee: SCOTUS ruling puts corporate America ahead of 'our children' [update: full statement]
After today's Supreme Court ruling, which declared it unconstitutional to ban the sale of violent video games to minors, California State Senator Leland Yee -- sponsor of the bill at the heart of the case -- is understandably disappointed. According to PC Magazine, Yee stated that the ruling "put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children." Yee added that the game industry would continue to profit "at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community." While the bill was struck down, Yee is "certain" that the court battle made more parents aware of violent games and that it "forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games." Considering that ESRB ratings already decorate both sides of every retail game box -- with further details available online -- we can only assume the next step is to begin broadcasting rating information at a frequency only parents can hear. Update: Senator Yee's full statement on the SCOTUS ruling can be found after the break. Yee praises Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the court's dissenting opinion. The statement also noted that, within the 7-2 verdict, two justices of the majority opinion believed that a revised version of the law could pass muster, implying that the final decision was narrower than it might appear.
Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us
In 2005, California state legislature passed Assembly Bill 1179, a law penned by Democratic state senator Leland Yee which prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. The law mandated the application of special stickers to titles deemed too violent, and slapped retail employees who sold those games to anyone under the age of 18 with a maximum $1,000 fine. The law was signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but was struck down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before it could be enforced. Following an unsuccessful appeal of that decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the law's progenitors petitioned for a hearing in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was successful, the case was argued last November and, earlier today, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to uphold the decision of the lower courts: California Assembly Bill 1179 violates the First Amendment rights afforded to all forms of media in the United States. This decision obviously doesn't just affect Californian teenagers with a penchant for video games above their maturity level. It represents a vote of confidence in games and the non-governmental agency (see: The ESRB) which regulates their sale.
Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law
The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinions on Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association, a case which argued the Constitutionality of a (since struck down) California state law which banned the sale of "violent" video games to minors. The majority opinion, decided upon by seven of the court's nine Justices, is to once again strike down the law. The majority opinion, in clear terms, states: Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas-and even social messages-through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority." The decision falls in line with other decisions of the lower courts regarding video game-banning legislation, such as the respective decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which found the law unconstitutional. There was, of course, a dissenting opinion (in this case, representing the concerns of Justices Thomas and Breyer) which states: The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings. We're sure to hear more from the Entertainment Software Association and other games lobbying groups in the coming hours, but the word from the highest court in the land is a promising one: Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States.
US Supreme Court says companies can force arbitration on class-acting consumers
Before today, Californian consumers were free to ignore the arbitration clause tucked in the fine print of every AT&T service contract because state law had declared them unconscionable -- which kept the courthouse doors open to class-acting consumers. However, in a ruling that no doubt pleases AT&T and others of its ilk, the highest court in the land has stripped the states of their power to so avoid arbitration with its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In an opinion penned by Justice Scalia (pictured), the Supremes said that the Federal Arbitration Act was passed to promote arbitration's quick and easy dispute resolution, and they couldn't have California (or any other state) contradicting the will of Congress by allowing lengthy group litigation when parties already agreed to private arbitration. That means companies are free to force customers to arbitrate their claims individually instead of joining together to file high-dollar class-action lawsuits, no matter what state laws say. Guess those large-scale litigation lawyers will have to look elsewhere to find the funds for their next Ferrari.
Supreme Court oral arguments now available as audio
You've skimmed the transcript. You've followed our coverage. Now, while we wait for something else to happen in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case before the Supreme Court, you can experience last week's oral arguments the way they were supposed to be experienced: by hearing them. The audio is now available if you want to spend an hour of your day hearing history in the making, or if you want to add your own NBA Jam guy commentary to your favorite Scalia shutdowns. In any case, if you're a video game player and, especially, an American (although any drop in US revenue from violent games is going to affect which games are marketed and even made, affecting everyone), it would probably be a good idea to pay attention to this case in some manner.%Gallery-106537%
Daily Show solves video game violence issue, saves Family Game Night
Okay, so maybe you were waiting to learn about this critically important Supreme Court video game case until you could hear The Daily Show's take on it. And yes, for that, you should be deeply ashamed. But here it is -- just after the break! In the clip, correspondent John Hodgman solves the violent video game problem through flattery, clever marketing and generous application of Ira Glass.
Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the recap
Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was one for the history books. The great state of California – represented here by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, ironically no stranger to media violence himself – versus the Entertainment Merchants Association, "the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $33 billion home entertainment industry," according to its website. At stake: just the future of free speech in video games, is all! ECA lawyer Jennifer Mercurio puts it succinctly, "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced." To get you up to speed on yesterday's goings-on, we've prepared this handy post. We've got pictures from the ECA-organized Gamer's Rally held before the court opened yesterday morning; pictured above is Jenner and Block LLP Partner Paul M. Smith, lead counsel for the video game industry in yesterday's proceedings. For the readers out there, try the full transcription of the oral arguments and, should 72 pages be a little dense for your lunchtime reading, we've encapsulated it all for you in our handy writeup here. Give it a read and impress your coworkers over lunch. "Did you read the Supreme Court transcript from yesterday? No? Well, I did and ..." If you're looking for some background on what exactly Schwarzenegger vs. EMA could mean for consumers, look no further than our interview with the ECA's Jennifer Mercurio. If you're more interested in how the game industry sees itself in this mess, then you need to read our interview with ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow. If you're curious about how things went for the ol' game industry, read ESA prez Michael Gallaghers comments following the Supreme Court session. "The argument today was very lively, the justices were very informed and the dialogue clearly established that video games are entitled to the same treatment as movies, music, books and other forms of entertainment." There's one final option, though. You could skip all that and simply read our highlight reel of SCOTUS quotes featuring additional commentary from the NBA Jam guy and well, that's fine too.%Gallery-106537%
Our favorite SCOTUS quotes with commentary from the NBA Jam guy
We're still poring over the transcripts from today's Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case, and as we discussed it, we decided our enthusiasm for the judges' utter contempt for the Schwazenegger side's argument could only be summed up with quotes from NBA Jam announcer Tim Kitzrow. Enjoy.
ECA to stage Washington rally prior to Supreme Court battle
Oral arguments for the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court case are set to begin on November 2. In the run up to the historic court battle, which could result in the restriction of sales of violent video games, the Entertainment Consumers Association is planning to organize a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court itself. The event is set to take place on November 2 at 9:00 am at the US Supreme Court Building, with the ECA calling on gamers to join the rally "in support of free speech." If you're planning on going, why not organize a carpool in the comments? After that, read through our litany of coverage on the issue, from its humble beginnings as a failed California state law to its upcoming moment in the spotlight before the Supreme Court. After all, we're sure it's a long ride to D.C. Might as well bone up on current events, right?
Activision Blizzard's chief public policy officer: California law unnecessary, a waste of money
The game industry has fired off another preemptory salvo in the looming Supreme Court battle over California's violent video game law. Writing in the Orange County Register, Activision's chief public policy officer, George Rose, declares the law to be "a textbook example of government overreaching that is stubbornly trying to make sure blind zealotry is allowed to trump reason." Apart from the usual First Amendment argument, Rose also notes that the law would put unfair legal and financial pressure on store clerks, who could be held legally responsible for selling an inappropriate game to an underage customer. "Enact this ominous law, and you leave it for the clerk to guess whether a game is covered by the law or not because it won't use the ratings system our industry developed," writes Rose, adding that clerks could be faced with losing their jobs or finding a way to reimburse their employer for incurred fines. Rose also states that, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the ESRB rating system has successfully prevented underage customers from purchasing adult games. He elaborates that the "egregious violent games" referenced by politicians are either rated AO or aren't rated at all. Either way, retailers routinely do not stock such games. Finally, Rose notes that the ESRB system is a privately funded program, whereas Governor Schwarzenegger's law proposes government funded enforcement. "California is a state with a history of budget shortfalls, IOUs, furloughed workers, closed DMV offices, shuttered courts, squeezed school districts where children wait weeks to start school, pummeled university budgets, stretched health care resources and cities without enough money to properly fund their police and fire needs," writes Rose, "They all can use state dollars that would be wasted here."
The ESA wants YOU (to send in your broken controllers)
With oral arguments set to begin on November 2 in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA Supreme Court case, the ESA, via its Video Game Voters Network (VGVN), is looking to send a message to the proposed law's chief proponent, California senator Leland Yee. As part of a campaign against the anti-game legislation, which the ESA terms "unconstitutional, unwarranted and unnecessary," the VGVN is asking gamers to send their old or broken controllers to Yee. Additionally, the VGVN asks that gamers inscribe the message "I believe in the First Amendment" onto said controllers (we've illustrated the concept using an old ColecoVision steering wheel; pictured above), hoping Yee will understand that games should be protected as free speech -- and, perhaps more importantly, that game players are voters too. The VGVN adds that game accessories and cables are acceptable as well, making this the perfect time to finally put that GBA-GameCube link cable to good use. Head over to the VGVN website for more details on how to send off your controllers and join the cause.
Activision joins industry chorus against proposed violent game law
Activision Blizzard and CEO Bobby Kotick have released a public statement regarding the upcoming Supreme Court hearing in Schwarzenegger v. EMA on November 2. In the declaration, the top third-party video game publisher in the world aligns itself with the ESA and almost every other group that can see the ramifications against the First Amendment and all forms of media the law would have if it stands. Kotick notes, "The sheer breadth of support exhibited by public interest organizations, civic and media groups, legislative leaders, academia and interested parties demonstrate both the importance video games have assumed in the hearts and minds of our nation and the sacredness of certain basic tenets of our Constitution. We will never give up the fight for the freedom of expression our industry deserves and we will never forget this support." If you're curious in the list of organizations supporting the video game industry in the Supreme Court case, we've listed those who filed briefs in support of the ESA after the break.
