AB-1179
Latest
Anti-violent game politician gets five years in jail
Disgraced former state senator Leland Yee has been sentenced to five years in jail after using up all of the world's irony in a single go. If you're not familiar, Yee was previously state senator for California most famous for leading a moral campaign against violent video games. The official authored AB-1179, a bill that would have outlawed the sale of games like Grand Theft Auto V which was defeated by the Supreme Court. When he wasn't doing that, however, he was basically acting like one of the corrupt officials that pepper the aforementioned video game's universe.
Politician against violent games pleads guilty in gun-running case
Oh, the irony. Disgraced former senator Leland Yee has pleaded guilty to charges of taking bribes in exchange for votes, racketeering and promising to smuggle guns into the US from the Philippines. Of course, like so many beautiful twists of fate, Yee was a prominent moral crusader who led a campaign against violent video games. The senator authored AB-1179, legislation that would have outlawed the sale of said titles to California's teens, which was defeated by the Supreme Court. Way to keep our kids safe, Leels.
Anti-violent game politician Leland Yee arrested in connection to gun trafficking
In a turn of events that sound an awful lot like something out of Grand Theft Auto, a prominent politician has been arrested on corruption, gun-running and money laundering charges. The irony here is that it's California Democratic Senator Leland Yee, who was a vocal supporter of gun regulation and also authored AB-1179, the (defeated) bill that would have outlawed the sale of violent video games to the Golden State's minors. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the arrest was part of a lengthy sting that brought in some 26 other perps and even involved Yee taking campaign donations from an FBI agent posing as a mafioso. Yee's out on a $500,000 bond according to SF Weekly, but he's due back in court next week and is facing 16 years in prison.
California out nearly $2 million on failed video game legislation
When California agreed to foot the Entertainment Software Association's $950,000 legal bill accrued during its deconstruction of Brown v. EMA, we estimated the state's cumulative payout to the ESA at around $1,327,000. Once you factor in the state's own legal costs, however, California's total payout for attempting to regulate the sale of violent games to minors rings up at a cool $1.8 million, according to The Sacramento Bee.Billable hours accrued by lawyers working for the state add an estimated $500,000 to the failed legislation's price tag, which has been slowly growing since the state decided to appeal the bill's initial injunction way back in 2007. Considering that California's budget deficit is projected to reach somewhere around $22 billion this year, two million bucks doesn't seem like all that much in comparison. It's like tossing a box of matches into a burning building: What are you gonna do, set it more on fire?
California to pay ESA $950,000 over failed game bill
The State of California has agreed to reimburse the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) $950,000 in legal fees for fighting Brown v. EMA up to the Supreme Court. The state must have brought in its top negotiators to get the original request for $1.1 million reduced. Including reimbursements for the 2008 case, which the state already paid, California has dished out more than $1,327,000 to ESA."Senator Yee and Governor Schwarzenegger wasted more than $1 million in taxpayer funds at a time when Californians could ill afford it," said Mike Gallagher, president and CEO of ESA. "However we feel strongly that some of these funds should be used to improve services for California's youth."The ESA stated it would donate a portion of the proceeds from the reimbursement to "develop after-school educational programs for underserved communities in Oakland and Sacramento." The trade association's new charitable education initiative will begin in the spring and will "harness young peoples' natural passion for playing and making video games and connect them to the development of critical 21st century job skills."States, seriously, stop it.
ESA wants $1.1 million reimbursement from California for SCOTUS battle
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has filed for a $1.1 million reimbursement for attorneys' fees from the State of California for fighting Brown v. EMA. The ESA's argument for reimbursement: "California persisted in defending a law that Plaintiffs warned the Legislature was unconstitutional before it was passed; that was previously found to be unconstitutional by the district court and a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit; and that is similar to at least eight other laws invalidated as unconstitutional prior to the time that California sought certiorari in this case." If only California had heeded the ESA's warning after it publicly posted the $282,794 reimbursement check for legal fees it received from the state, following a lower court's decision back in 2008.
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.
Utah rep won't continue pursuing game legislation after SCOTUS decision
Following the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a California law rendering the sale of violent video games to minors illegal, a Utah politician has pledged not to continue pushing for a similar law in his own state. Since 2007, Representative Michael Morley has been in support of a law drafted by Jack Thompson, passed in Utah's legislature in 2008, that would allow parents to sue retailers for false advertising if they sold mature-rated games to children. Morley is still in support of that bill, but recognized that continued efforts to make it law would likely be fruitless. "It's not on my radar to fight that fight," he told the Deseret News. In the bill's defense, though, he told the paper that his bill was designed to facilitate parental lawsuits, and not impose a fine as the proposed California law would have. [Image: NMA]
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!
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.
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.
Leland Yee and Activision VP to debate if games should be restricted
Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, March 17! Make your way down to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club to see two titans of the "violent games" debate square off in an argumentative deathmatch. We're speaking, of course, of Activision vice president George Rose and California state legislator Leland Yee, who authored the infamous AB-1179; the mature game ban bill that made its way up to the Supreme Court in November. The two men will be debating the bill alongside Stanford Constitutional Law Center director Michael McConnell, with San Francisco Chronicle editor John Diaz serving as moderator, in a panel appropriately titled "Should Sales of Violent Video Games Be Restricted?" If you're in the Bay area, you can grab your tickets now. You're not going to want to miss it. We hear there's gonna be points and counterpoints.
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.
Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law
Activision Blizzard vice president and chief public policy officer George Rose has once again sounded off against attacks on his industry's First Amendment protections. This time, it's in the form of an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle which tears down the supporters of AB-1179, the California law which prohibited the sale of "excessively violent" games to minors. The law will not go into effect in 2011 due to its repeal by the federal courts -- but that didn't prevent Rose from venting some steam regarding the former law's endorsers. "Sadly, supporters will accept nothing less than more laws, subbing for parents, that the state can't afford to enforce," Rose wrote. "So to whip up drama and hysteria where none justifiably exists, zealots supporting this movement cite the worst of the worst by harking back to video game dinosaurs like 1997's Postal." Rose argues that no other medium is judged based on one title, so doing so is "disingenuous" in the case of games. Ironically enough, you know what movie we'd use to pass judgment on the movie industry? Postal. Convenient, right?
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.
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%
