I can already answer the dumbasses' questions for them:

1) Yes.

2) Yes. You are directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment, therefore you need absolute proof that the speech in question is "harmful". Never been done and never will be.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

A few interesting things in reading the petition (I suppose that technically I'm reading the laws behind it).  I'll be curious if they actually address these.

1)  the State did not demonstrate that parental controls available on some new versions of gaming consoles would be less effective.

2)  The court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s finding that, even assuming a direct causal connection had been shown, the Act was not the least restrictive means of preventing the identified harm to minors.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems their petition completely ignores this part of the lower court findings, and the above finding is likewise unmentioned in the actual petition, but rather is mentioned only in the case history.  If memory serves, the availability of parental controls for TVs was a significant step in why most TV is unregulated by the gov't, but now they're arguing, or at least implying, that parental controls are ineffective or irrelevant to the issue of regulation.  That seems like a rather slippery slope.

3)   Like other forms of unprotected speech recognized to date

... When have video games actually been recognized, in a court of law, as unprotected speech?

4)   No essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth  

That's a remarkably narrow viewpoint...  I'll concede that games such as Postal (which is one of the ones cited in their research, I believe) have no real societal benefit, but that doesn't mean that none of them do.  In fact, there are several games (offhand, Portal seems to be the best example, even though it's non-violent and therefore not attacked here) which provide remarkable insights into otherwise extraordinarily dense concepts.  In fact, this makes me wonder just how many games this act would really restrict... How many games are there which can be classified under this definition?  Other than the aforementioned Postal (which I haven't actually played, so feel free to correct me) I can't think of any this argument really applies to.

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

Edit:  Sorry for the wall of text.

You know I haven't heard talk of game legislation in a long while, I thought we were finished. It looks like we aren't though but only because my state is bringing it to the Supreme Court.

If CA wins we can expect a victory dance by JT, and new legislation popping up all over.

If they lose it would be great but I can't help but think some states will still try and just claim "we have more conclusive evidence than CA did at the time" although a negative Supreme Court ruling will likely discourage states from trying and definitely be precedent circuit courts would have to consider.

If they refuse to hear the case, the unconstitutional ruling stands on the CA law and we're back to waiting which next state will pop up with a similar bill, if any.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.