AB-1179
Latest
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%
ESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument
Following today's oral arguments session in the U.S. Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA, representatives from the Entertainment Software Association (they're on the EMA side) held a conference call to discuss how they thought things went. ESA president Michael Gallagher was optimistic, saying, "Today was a historic day, not only for the computer and video game industry, but for the First Amendment." He added, "I think that in court today, you heard every single argument the industry has made, articulated not just by Paul [Smith] ... but by the justices themselves." "ESA is very, very proud of the work that was done by Paul," Gallagher said. "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." Jenner and Block counsel of record Paul Smith, who presented the EMA's arguments during today's hearings, was similarly optimistic. He offered his opinion that the representative from California's arguments didn't satisfy the "strict scrutiny" requirements needed to revoke video games' First Amendment protections. He added, "Though there's obviously a great deal of complexity in the whole thing -- and it's very difficult to come away knowing with any sense of confidence where the court's going to come down specifically -- we do feel pretty good about having all of our arguments aired, and getting a lot of traction." ESA general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow echoed Smith's confidence, saying, "It was gratifying to hear all of the themes we had presented in our papers echoed by one or more justices at various times throughout the day. We feel very confident that our case was heard as thoroughly and carefully as it can be." "There's really no way to know for sure how this is going to come out," Doroshow said, "but we at least feel good that the best case possible was put forward for the industry and our position."
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.
Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now
You've read about the stakes, you've read about the procedure -- now it's time to read about exactly what went down in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today, when representatives from the Entertainment Software Association and the state of California butted heads over the contentious Schwarzenegger v. EMA case. The Supreme Court's official website recently posted a complete transcript of the oral arguments from both parties -- you can pore over an embedded version of it below. The 72-page document is quite a read -- we'll update this post periodically with highlights from the proceedings. Click past the jump for more!
ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court
When the clock strikes 10 a.m. tomorrow morning in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. By now, you know how the results of this landmark case will affect the video game industry and its consumers -- but who's actually going to bat for the industry in tomorrow's hearings? More importantly, how does that litigatory sausage get made? Entertainment Software Association general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow is one such batter (or sausage-maker, depending on which of the previous metaphors you followed). A media law heavyweight in his own right, Doroshow has served as an executive for the Recording Industry Association of America and as senior counsel the U.S. Department of Justice before joining the ESA in September 2008. Tomorrow, he'll be one of the legal representatives for the Entertainment Merchants Association, responsible for helping it make its side of the argument to the Supreme Court. Doroshow broke down the specifics of that argument for us earlier today. To learn about the case the ESA is presenting in court tomorrow -- as well as the possible repercussions of the Supreme Court's decision -- check out our Q&A with Doroshow after the jump.
How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers
Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will convene to hear oral arguments for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association -- a case most gamers are likely familiar with. The court will decide whether or not to overturn the decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- both of which found California law AB 1179, which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. According to Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, there's a lot more at stake in this case than whether or not mature titles will be legally withheld from Californian teenagers. Much, much more, in fact -- should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of the two lower courts, certain First Amendment protections currently afforded to video games (and, by association, other forms of entertainment media) could be abolished, completely changing the landscape of the industry. Mercurio sums it up nicely: "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced."
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."
Senator Yee's office recommends you mail him Kinect, not 'dated controllers'
In a cheeky response to the Video Game Voters Network initiative to bombard California senator Leland Yee's office with old and broken controllers, Yee's chief of staff Adam Keigwin told GamePolitics, "I think the Senator would appreciate a Kinect add-on rather than those dated controllers." That wasn't his only zinger. "I can only assume these broken controllers must represent the broken promises of the video game industry to parents," Keigwin quipped in his reply to GP on the matter, before firing off a list of "free speech awards" Sen. Yee has earned for his apparent commitment to the First Amendment. "In fact, there is not a California legislator who has authored more bills to promote speech rights than Senator Yee." Sen. Yee is the author of Caifornia's law AB 1179, signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2005, which bans the sale of certain "violent" games to minors. Two years later, the Ninth District Court of Appeals found AB 1179 to be a violation of the First Amendment and effectively terminated the law. However, the Governator fought back, leading us up to November 2, 2010: the day the U.S. Supreme Court will hear opening arguments in the case -- and two days before any of us can actually send Yee a Kinect unit. Would the senator settle for a Move in the meantime?
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!
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.
ESA prez addresses upcoming Supreme Court case in Baltimore Sun op-ed
In an editorial written by Entertainment Software Association president Michael Gallagher for The Baltimore Sun, the executive laid out for the mainstream why California's proposed video game law is "based on the discredited myth that the fictional depiction of violence actually causes real violence." "Never before has the Supreme Court restricted freedom of speech on the basis of violent content," writes Gallagher. "There is no logic in restricting sales of video games, which use avatars, but not books or movies, which often depict violence committed by -- and upon -- real people." This statement follows support from organizations representing other forms of media, which have submitted briefs backing the ESA. (If video games aren't protected, that means other media is at risk.) "Legal precedent, expert opinion and logic all yield the same conclusion: The California statue is unconstitutional, unwarranted and unnecessary," Gallagher concludes. "Based on the law and the facts -- not the myths -- we hope the U.S. Supreme Court concurs." Give the editorial a read. A decision in the case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA, is expected by Spring 2011; the Supreme Court will hear the opening oral arguments next month.
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.
Common Sense Media: 72 percent of parents support proposed Calif. violent game law
The non-profit, family-centric organization known as Common Sense Media recently published the results of a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, which asked 2,100 parents about their stance on the contested California law that would ban the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. According to a press release from the group, 72 percent of respondents support the ban, while 75 percent would "rate the video game industry negatively when it comes to how they protect kids from violent video games." Said Common Sense Media founder James Steyer: "What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the video game industry." Of course, the Supreme Court isn't ruling on who decides which games kids play. The court's ruling on whether First Amendment protections can be waived for games deemed by ... someone to be too violent, formalizing a policy already adopted by major retailers into a California state law. Parents, as far as we know, still have the final say over what media their kids are allowed to consume -- not the video game industry, the ESRB, Governor Schwarzenegger or even the Supreme Court. Then again, when you support your position with videos like the one posted after the jump (the link to which was included in Common Sense's press release), we can understand why parents might lose the equanimity required to make that distinction.
Entertainment Software Association files brief in Supreme Court case
The Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association have voiced their side of the upcoming Supreme Court review of the 2005 California law which prohibits the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. The two organizations have filed a joint brief in the Supreme Court, which explicitly states (several times) that "the California statute is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstitutional." The brief adds, "it would threaten freedom of expression not just for video games, but for all art forms. It would also tie up our courts in endless debates about what constitutes acceptable creative expression in our media. It protects no one and assaults the constitutional rights of artists and storytellers everywhere." Of course, in these matters, it would be irresponsible for us to side with one of the two involved parties but OH MAN COME ON THE ESA IS TOTALLY RIGHT. Check out the entirety of the brief on the ESA's official site. Stay tuned -- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association will go into oral argument November 2.
Violent video game case gets its date in Supreme Court on Nov. 2
It's been a long road for the California bill backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that seeks to keep violent video games from being sold to minors. But the end is finally in sight: The Entertainment Consumer Association has announced that the case, known as Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association), will go before US Supreme Court on November 2. As an outside party, the ECA will submit an amicus brief in the case and has set up a website for a petition and more information about the pending arguments. So far, lower courts have judged the proposed law, which would set up legal rules and penalties against selling violent video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. Of course, this time around, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, so any decision in favor of the bill would overturn previous rulings in lesser courts. Take that, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals! Oral arguments in the case begin November 2, and the judges should have a decision soon after that. This will be the first time the Supreme Court looks at video games and the First Amendment, so a ruling either way should be pretty historic.
ESA 'humble' about chances against California in Supreme Court case
[Laura Padgett] Entertainment Software Association President Michael Gallagher mentioned in a briefing yesterday that he has a "great amount of respect for the Supreme Court" and feels modest about the trade group's chances of defeating the California game law heading to the United States' highest court. "We're very humble about our prospects before the court greatly. We believe we're on the side of right here," Gallagher stated. "We've believed that for 10 years. That hasn't wavered one iota. You go into this preparing to win, but also very prepared to handle the other conclusions as well." The State of California and ESA will submit briefs to the court, along with supporting briefs, over the next few months. Oral arguments are expected this fall with a decision by the court next spring. Asked if he believes winning will change the way States go about game laws, Gallagher explained, "[State government] moves like lightning and moves -- depending on where you are -- in an informed or uninformed manner. If we win, then we feel we'll be done at long last with these content issues. Video games ... it's already been recognized through a dozen decisions that we're entitled to the same first amendment treatment as movies, as music, as books. That is what we're hoping will be the law of the land at the conclusion of this case. So, we win, we can put this behind us and focus on incentives for the industry." Gallagher expressed those incentives included focusing on jobs and tax incentives for the industry, instead of regulatory issues. Of course, if the Supreme Court finds in favor of California, the executive believes states will react immediately and the industry will be embroiled in trying to figure out what to do. He also notes that such a decision wouldn't just be about regulating games, but it opens up the door to going after movies, television and books.
ECA: Supreme Court case is 'single most important challenge' ever for game industry
This October is the earliest we could possibly see some movement on the US Supreme Court appeal of AB 1179, the California-based violent game bill that would fine retailers who sell M-rated titles to kids. But that's not stopping the Entertainment Consumer's Association from submitting an amicus brief to the court, not to mention a recently created online petition "which will be attached and submitted along with the brief, both formally becoming part of the official court documents," the lobby group announced today. "The gaming sector, as a whole, has arrived at perhaps the single most important challenge it has ever faced in the US," ECA prez Hal Halpin notes in the release. "Anyone who cares about gaming should feel compelled to both sign the petition and encourage their friends and family to do similarly." Given the online nature of the petition, we're also encouraging all of our pets and invisible friends to sign up. In all seriousness, though, signing wouldn't hurt, and it only takes a few seconds -- less time than it takes to convince your mom that, no, Grand Theft Auto IV is not a murder simulator!
California AG and developers sound off over bill facing Supreme Court
In a statement released by the International Game Developer's Association recently, the group called California's controversial game bill "oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research." The response came just days after the US Supreme Court decided to allow California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeal to review the bill on a federal scale, though it's been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in his state (not to mention the similar bills in other states that have also been shot down repeatedly). We reached out to the California Attorney General's office to find out why it's pursuing a bill that's been plagued by overrulings, and were told, "All of those courts held that it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether extremely violent material can be treated the same as sexually explicit material under the First Amendment when it comes to minors. This means that we had to ask the Supreme Court to extend the law, something the lower courts were not willing to do." We further pressed for why it's targeting video games over films, television, and other entertainment mediums. A representative responded, "There is a growing body of social science that has identified violent video games as being especially harmful to children given the interactive nature of video games, and the FTC conducted investigations that showed it was easier for minors to buy Mature-rated video games than it was to get into R-rated movies." However, the IGDA's statement contends "Violence is conveyed in explicit ways on television, in print media, via the Internet, and in film. All of these platforms constitute speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The piece also states the association's position that it remains staunchly against "censorship of expressive media in all forms" but points out that it's especially against politicians using that censorship "for political gain." The appeal could see its first hearing as early as this October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term. [Via GamePolitics]
