Paul-M-Smith
Latest
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%
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!
