us supreme court
Latest
The Supreme Court will hear social media cases with immense free speech implications
The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear two cases that could transform how social media companies police their content.
US Supreme Court moving to digital filing system in 2016
The Supreme Court of the US has stuck stubbornly to its ways. No cameras in the court room, a paper filing system, those robes... which are so last century. That may begin to change over the next couple of years however. In a year-end report released Wednesday night, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the court would begin accepting electronic filings as early as 2016. The court will have to first develop the system, then it will be rolled out in stages. At first paper documents will be used as the default, but those represented by attorneys in the court will also have to file the same documents electronically. Once that trial proves successful, digital documents will become the default for everyone. Though, paper filings will still be required. As Justice Roberts explained in the report, "Unlike commercial enterprises, the courts cannot decide to serve only the most technically-capable or well-equipped segments of the public... the courts must remain open for those who do not have access to personal computers."
FBI deactivates about 3,000 GPS tracking devices, loses sight of your car
Following a January ruling by the US Supreme Court, the FBI has deactivated some 3,000 GPS units that were potentially infringing on the Fourth Amendment. The decision seems to be making waves in the U.S. Justice Department. Andrew Weissmann, FBI General Counsel, says some of the devices have been difficult to retrieve, as the vehicles they were once tracking now move undetected. The FBI has sought temporary permission to reactivate some of the devices to locate and retrieve the hardware. Weissmann says the FBI is also developing new guidelines regarding the legality of its agent's actions -- from the application and use of tracking devices, to the extent a suspect's garbage can be searched before the agent is committing trespass. In short, the FBI is working really hard not to violate your legal right to privacy. If you happen to find something weird under you car, give 'em a call. They'd probably like it back.
Supreme Court says police must get search warrant to use GPS tracking devices
The US Supreme Court ruled today that police must first obtain a search warrant before using GPS devices to track a suspect's vehicle, agreeing with an earlier appeals court ruling but rejecting the Obama administration's position on the case. In delivering the decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court holds "that the government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,'" and therefore violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The case itself concerned a Washington DC nightclub owner and suspected drug dealer, Antoine Jones, who had his car's movements monitored for a month and was eventually sentenced to life in prison, only to see that conviction overturned by the aforementioned appeals court on the grounds that the police did not have a search warrant when they placed the GPS tracking device on his vehicle.[Image courtesy Wired]
US Supreme Court strikes down California law, says video games are protected as free speech
It's already been found unconstitutional by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court of the United States has finally weighed in on the infamous California state law that sought to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. In a seven-to-two ruling on the Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association case, the Supreme Court said that video games are indeed protected as free speech under the First Amendment, and noted that under the 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." Inevitable, perhaps, but still a fairly historic day or the video game industry -- and one that we're guessing will be a bit more positively received than a certain other milestone involving violent video games this year. You can find the complete ruling in PDF form at the source link below.
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]
US Supreme Court to weigh California game law
[Laura Padgett] The US Supreme Court today announced that it will consider an appeal by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding the sale of violent video games to minors in the state. This marks the first time the federal court has been involved in a video game-related case. The California bill backed by the Schwarzenegger has seen many, many, many ups and downs over the course of its five-year life span, going from a fledgling bill just waiting for the right signature to a chronically reputed source of frustration for the head of state; and most recently failing in California's Ninth Circuit Court. But as the governor is known to do, he returned once again, fulfilling his promise to bring Assembly Bill 1179 to the highest US court, reports Reuters. Entertainment Software Association president and CEO Mike Gallagher commented in a press release on the Supreme Court's decision to see the case, called "Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants" (number 08-1448), saying, "Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional." He hopes that "the Court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment." If the appeal is overturned, the law would require more stringent labeling requirements of violent games sold in California, as well as the threat of a $1,000 fine for each game sold by a retailer to a minor illegally. Historically, US Supreme Court rulings have been used to set precedent for other cases. In so many words, should the appeal be overturned, the Court's ruling could affect similar court decisions in other states. The earliest the appeal would be seen is in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.
