Schwarzenegger-v-EMA
Latest
LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.
Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: I believe I likely owe you an apology. LGJ should have covered this decision the day it was issued, but unfortunately, sometimes clients have to come first. So here we are, a few days after the decision, and the topic has been covered in great detail. I have read the decision, but have largely avoided other coverage of the case so that I could give you my opinion without being impacted by other analysis. Since I imagine most coverage has largely been focused on the majority opinion alone, I will also be discussing the concurring and dissenting opinions. As always, this is simply my opinion on the decision, and to that end, there is some room for people to disagree. This was, in short, about the best possible outcome, both for the game industry and for the public at large, that could have been expected. It was also an opinion that was the most consistent with existing case law and contemporary First Amendment legal theory. The most important aspect to this case was the court stating fairly unequivocally that new and different forms of media shouldn't be treated any differently simply because they are new and different forms of media. Ultimately, obscene content is obscene content, and though some media may have an easier time crossing the line than others, that doesn't mean the line moves.
The Lawbringer: Supreme Court decides Brown v. EMA
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that video games fall under the same First Amendment speech protections as books, movies, music, and art. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, decrying California's attempts to restrict speech as, at the same time, too under-inclusive and too over-inclusive. What does that mean for the video game industry? What does this decision mean for video games in general? Self-regulation, it seems, is doing the job when it comes to keeping parents in charge and violent video games in the hands where they belong. If you have no idea what Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) is about, check out my first Lawbringer feature on the topic as well as Gamasutra's feature, as it is probably the best, concise understanding of the case as it was back in November of 2010. Now, however, we have a decision. After being argued on Nov. 2, 2010, the Supreme Court decided on June 27, 2011, by a vote of 7-2 that the California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.
NMA TV breaks down the Supreme Court game ruling
While we did our best to provide extensive coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on violent video games, all we could really do was write the news and related analysis, which could lead only to the most superficial understanding of the nuances of this precedent-setting decision. To really understand the case, you need to see computer-generated recreations of the justice-versus-justice gunfights that led to this historic decision -- and that's why NMA World Edition is so important. Head past the break and begin your legal education in earnest.
Victory lap: ESA responds to Supreme Court decision
After battling the state of California since 2005, the Entertainment Software Association met the Supreme Court's historic decision today to classify video games as protected speech with both great joy and, we imagine, a tinge of sadness. During a press call this afternoon, ESA prez Michael Gallagher fielded question after question about the case, the court's dissenting opinions, and the likelihood of future legislation trying to curb the sale of violent games. "This is the thirteenth consecutive decsion, and obviously the most important," Gallagher said, "upholding the first-amendment rights of video game developers and video game companies." After the Supreme Court decided to hear the California case, Gallagher says that the ESA has "seen a very steady drop-off in the volume of legislation targeted at content in our industry." In fact, "there's only a single federal bill that addresses these issues at the moment and it has at least one or no co-sponsors," Gallagher said proudly.
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!
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.
Supreme Court decision on Schwarzenegger v. EMA possibly coming this week [update]
According to SCOTUSblog, a site dedicated to tracking the activity of the head of our nation's Judicial Branch, a decision on November's hearing of Schwarzenegger v. EMA (now Brown v. EMA, reflecting California's new, assumedly punier governor) will be released this week. The hearing was held to review a California law which prohibited the sale of mature games to minors -- a law which was attacked due to its ambiguity in defining what constituted a mature game. The blog expects the court to either issue its opinion on Brown v. EMA today or Thursday -- we'll make sure to let you know where they come down. Personally, we really hope they decide in favor of the EMA, as this would be a kind of a bummer of a week for video games to be totally outlawed. (That's probably not going to happen.) Update: Though the Supreme Court was expected to rule this week, it looks like they'll be holding their decision for a later date. The SCOTUS session ends the week of June 27, and though the court could conceivably extend the session, a decision is expected before then.
PAX East 2011: Law In Games panel hits home for WoW
PAX East is home to all sorts of panels and discussion, ranging from sexism in video games to mechanics and motivations in the games we play. Legal issues are present in all things, and video games -- even World of Warcraft -- are no exception. Two of the biggest topics at the panel, hosted by prominent legal minds in the video game industry, were End User License Agreements and damages in game as part of tort law. All in all, it was a very interesting panel of Q&A from some of gaming's smartest minds.
ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow moves on
The Entertainment Software Association has confirmed to Gamasutra that its General Counsel, Kenneth Doroshow, has left the organization to join forces with Burford Group, an investment advising firm based in Washington D.C.. You might remember Doroshow for his work in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court hearing last November, in which -- we think we can all agree -- the dude dunked all over the opposition's legal representatives. Like, he slam dunked it in their faces, and was all like, "Booyah," basically. We wish Doroshow the best of luck with his new position, and hope the remainder of his career is marked by multitudes of equally boombastic, totally nasty slamma-jammas.
ECA rally before the Supreme Court violent game hearing captured on video
Though you've probably heard plenty of empirical evidence on Xbox Live to the contrary, gamers are capable of being angry about something without totally losing their minds. Check out the video below of the ECA rally held before Schwarzenegger v. EMA to see how cooler heads prevailed in D.C.
The Lawbringer: Self-regulation and the video game industry
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Hello, friends. I hope you all enjoyed the discussion last week about Schwarzenegger v. EMA that took place in the article and in the comments. People get very passionate about the role of government, and I thought the conversation was a very positive one, so thank you. This week, I've got a little more self-regulation talk for you, so please come in, sit, and get ready for another fun look at the video games industry.
The Lawbringer: Schwarzenegger v. EMA
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Supreme Court cases are super-exciting, especially when they involve things that I cherish. This week, The Lawbringer looks at Schwarzenegger v. EMA, the new flagship video game case that people will be talking about for months until we get a final ruling from the Supreme Court. Don't know what's going on? Want a basic understanding of why people are yelling and screaming about violent video games and California? Let's journey together all the way back to 2005 and see for ourselves.
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%
The Lawbringer: Arguing about video games
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? One day, massively multiplayers will be center stage at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We aren't there yet, but one day. Hell, we just got video games as a genre of entertainment on the lips of the Supreme Court justices. I'll talk about the Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA later on, once we've got more to go on than the opening arguments, etc., and give you a rundown in the simplest terms possible about what is being argued over. For now, I'd like to talk about the language of video games being used in the case and get a little ranty about who gets to argue about video games.
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%
