Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Today, 11/2/10,the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ Entertainment Software Association. They’ll decide whether a California law, which would restrict the sale of “violent” computer and video games, is constitutional.

This case could have huge implications for the industry. No one is sure what counts as a “violent” game, so the California law would suppress game developers’ imagination and right to self-expression. It would also prohibit retailers from selling the games that might be perfectly legal, “just in case.” It could mean an environment where “God of War” is banned from retail shelves, but the sometimes violent written works detailing Greek myths are still available on bookstores shelves and taught in classrooms.

The California law is similar to what Congress tried to do to comic books over fifty years ago. In a letter of support for video games, comic book legend Stan Lee explained:

    “A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not “afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.” Comic books were burned… Looking back, the outcry was — forgive the expression — comical. Substitute video games for comic books and you’ve got a 21st century replay of the craziness of the 1950s.”

If the Supreme Court sides against the video game industry, developers could experience a creative chilling effect, because the government could essentially tell determine what games could and could not be created. It would also open up states to pass a patchwork of legislation around the country, requiring publishers to release many different versions of each game they publish. And, these same restrictions could eventually be applied to other creative mediums like movies, books and music. The result would be a huge foot on the brake for innovation in one of our nation’s most dynamic economic sectors.

Media Coalition members the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Motion Picture Association of America, and Entertainment Consumers Association also filed briefs supporting respondents. There were 27 amicus briefs filed in support of respondents EMA and ESA, from Activision Blizzard inc to the Microsoft Corporation.

But there are common-sense reasons to oppose this law as well, most importantly this: The decision over whether to buy a video game or a book or a movie should be made by responsible parents, not the government.

Fortunately, the courts have historically aligned themselves on the side of video games. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled that the California law is unconstitutional, and every other state and federal court case has ruled in favor of video games as protected speech.

------
So this was taken from the PlayStation website, I love the fact that the government feels the need to be the role as parents in this.

If you would like to help, you can join the Video Games Voters Network (for legal voting/U.S. citizens only)

The Video Game Voters Network is a place for voting age gamers to organize and defend against threats to video games. Video games are fully protected speech under the Constitution, and receive the same First Amendment protection as books, movies, music and cable television programs. The VGVN opposes efforts to regulate the content of entertainment media, including proposals to criminalize the sale of certain games to minors, or regulate video games differently from movies, music, books, and other media.

so what are your thoughts in all of this?

yeah, because this lawsuit is only in the U.S. and you must be a U.S. citizen and be legal to vote to sign up. Thanks Val, that would of helped if I put that in the original post so I fixed it.

LBP is one of the worst violent games in my opinion, you don't know how many times Zodiac, Pinakul, Bain, TX, Migz, GoDead killed me with fire, water, hazardous gas, and being electrocuted! It was horrible!!!!

If the government going to restrict violent video games, they might as well restrict violent movies too since they are similar and/or alike.

reminds me of a video i saw about the subject
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech

which reminds me of another video by those guys (well 2 guys 1 gal)
which is also about games being negatively reflected in the media
(Six days in Fallujah in particular)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2414-Facing-Controversy

their point of view is that games have the potential to be art (they get kinda really passionate about it sometimes)
you can compare it to other forms of media like movies or novels, and see that all of them can tell a story, or give a moment of introspection as long as they actually try to achieve that, and don't settle for just being a play-thing

id say thats worth more than having all games being labeled and (falsely) stereotyped as they sometimes still are in the media, or appearantly court

like mentioned before, itd be like going to court, saying half the movies should be banned

Here are some transcripts from the Supreme Court oral discussion on this case. Here are some of the best quotes.

If you would like to view the whole court transcript, click on the link
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/transcripts-from-supreme-courts-violent-game-case-available-now/

JUSTICE SCALIA: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.
MR. MORAZZINI: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I don't think; is that answering Justice Kagan's question? One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about excessive glorification of drinking, movies that have too much drinking? Does it have an effect on minors? I suppose so. I -- I am not just concerned with the vagueness. I am concerned with the vagueness, but I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. You are asking us to create a -- a whole new prohibition which the American people never -- never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment. They knew they were -- you know, obscenity was -- was bad, but -- what's next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Movies that show smoking can't be shown to children? Does -- will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will. But is -- is that -- are -- are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why -- why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay?


MR. MORAZZINI: Your Honor, as to minors, I believe, looking at some of the historic statutes States had passed, had enacted in the past, there was a social recognition that there is a level of violent material JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What's the earliest statute?
MR. MORAZZINI: Pardon?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What's the earliest statute and how much enforcement was
MR. MORAZZINI: Your Honor, I don't know the earliest statute off the top of my head. I believe they go back into the early 1900s, perhaps later. I apologize, but I don't know that.

Hello, I now became a member of this community here and I would love to be a part of it. Just enjoy the environment here.


__________________
Watch Tron Legacy Online Free