Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely to Fail

May 22, 2009 -

An expert on media law has told the Christian Science Monitor it is unlikely that the United States Supreme Court will accept California's petition to review the constitutionality of its violent video game law.

Dave Kohler (left), who heads the Southwestern Law School Donald Biederman Entertainment and Media Law Institute, told the CSM:

For a variety of reasons, I don't think [the Justices will] take [California's case]. The most significant one is the fact that if you apply this [violence] standard to video games, then you have to apply it to television, movies, and pay cable shows as well.

You're talking about the central topic of many of the great works of literature throughout history.

Aong that line, the CSM takes note of the 2001 ruling by Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court. In striking down an Indianapolis game violence statute, Posner wrote:

To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Read Judge Posner's decision in AAMA v. Kendrick.


Comments

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

I think we need more people like this guy on TVs just so parents can get the right message.

 

It hate it when politicians and news reporters and family groups go for the common sence apporach when it comes to arguments against Violent Videogames or Violent Media in general.

Because common sence is only a method of belief but it does not make it right in the eyes of the law and the American Constitution.

 

TBoneTony

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

Give this guy a break, willya? Yes, he's saying the same thing most of US are saying- the difference is that he's telling it to people who haven't said it, or may not have heard about it in the first place. Sad as it is, there are ALOT of people in the U.S. who have no idea how our judicial works- some are even misguided enough to believe that laws like these could work, and at worst, some DELUDE themselves into thinking that it's for the best, regardless of repurcussions. The only reason WE take this issue close to heart is because most, if not all, of us are gamers, and we take it upon ourselves to study the issues because it would affect US- you can't expect a person who has never touched a game in their life to look at the issue the same way.

Just because he's saying what everybody here is thinking doesn't make himany less right.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

Exactly. Just because he's preaching to the converted here, doesn't mean he is in general.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

SCOTUS is about as likely to grant cert in this case as it was likely to grant it in JT's.

1) One of the reasons SCOTUS often grants cert is to resolve splits between the various circuits because federal law is supposed to be uniform.  Every federal court that's addressed the issue, however, has found these sort of restrictions unconstitutional.  And since existing federal law on the issue is already uniform, there's no need for an even more authoritative statement affirming it.

2) Short of throwing a giant monkeywrench into First Amendment jurisprudence by expanding the already narrow and reasonably well-defined obscenity exception, the only real reason I could see SCOTUS granting cert would be CA's argument that the 9th Circuit's opinion conflicts with Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994).  (See Pet. for Cert. 11-15)  But even a cursory reading of Turner clearly shows that CA doesn't know what it's talking about. 

Basically, CA's cert petition argues that Turner requires courts to defer to the legislature's judgment, when supported by the record, about whether the restriction will help reduce the anticipated harms; therefore, the 9th Circuit should have defered to CA's judgment, supported by the aggression studies, that restricting minors' access to violent videogames will help reduce the anticipated harms to minors.  The insurmountable flaw in this argument, however, is that Turner was applying intermediate scrutiny to a content-neutral law that required cable companies to carry local channels, 512 U.S. at 662, not strict scrutiny to a law that explicitly restricts speech based on content.  The difference is huge.  It's like changing the burden of proof in a criminal trial from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "yeah, he probably did it."

As long as the law clerks on cert-pool duty actually read Turner, I can't see granting cert on that front either.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

You raise a valid point which I doubt is of common knowledge: in most all cases, the Court's law clerks have more to do with a grant or denial of cert than the nine Justices do.  I suspect there's a common misconception that the Justices actually read more than 1% of the Petitions and the case law cited therein before casting their votes in Conference and that they're not relying on a one-page bench memorandum which some law clerk drafted. 

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

Everyone already knows this Capt. Obviouse.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

I'm glad we have these experts to tell us what we already knew.

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

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

Not particularly--it would have no precedential value at all.

Granting cert. and issuing summary disposition is highly unlikely.  The Court will just deny the petition.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

Why would the Supreme Court's summary upholding of a Circuit court's opinion not increase the precedential value of the lower court's opinion?

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

More to the point, do we really NEED any more precedent? How many identical cases have gone through the courts so far again, with 0 victories for the states?
 

Yes, it would be an awesome victory if the Supreme Court upheld the decision instead of just refusing to hear the case, but I hardly think it's necessary at this point.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

A victory for the states, no.

A victory for the politician aiming to look good in front of the "for the children crowd", yes, if a temporary one.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

I suspect that the proponents would argue that it is precisely because we've had so many identical cases go through the courts so far that some kind of affirmation from the Supremes would be a good thing. That way, maybe there'd be less of those identical cases working their way through the courts. 

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

Gameslaw posted that he thinks that SCotUS will either deny cert or summarily uphold the 9th Circuit's ruling:

http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/05/20/california-appeals-vsda-v-schwarzenegger-to-scotus/

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

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

I'd prefer a summary upholding. That, at least, adds an air of precedence to the whole thing.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

I can't see the Supremes summarily upholding any opinion which comes out of the Ninth Circuit, if for no other reason than pure spite owing to the fact that the Ninth Circuit has created so much busy-work for the Supremes. Of all the Circuits, the Ninth has been more frequently overruled by the Supremes than any other Circuit.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

Agreed.

If I remember correctly, Indianapolis had appealed the 7th Circuit's ruling to SCotUS, but SCotUS denied cert without comment, like they did with Thompson's case earlier this year.

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

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

If I predict that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, does that qualify me as an expert in astronomy?

If you really wanna impress me, predict the Super 6 Lotto numbers.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is ...

If he could predict lotto numbers he probably wouldn't be writing for newspapers.

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

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.

---------------------------------------------------- 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.

Re: Legal Expert Says California's Supreme Court Bid is Likely

I think I speak for most when I say...

No shit Sherlock!!!

 

All this shielding and rubber padding is going to further wussify the country.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
MaskedPixelanteDid Capcom ever give us a timeline for when they planned on putting the Megaman stuff on Wii U?07/27/2014 - 2:23pm
MaskedPixelanteIf by "distance themselves from Google Plus" you mean "forcing Google Plus integration in everything", then yes, they are distancing themselves from Google Plus.07/26/2014 - 12:20pm
MechaTama31I wish they would distance G+ from the Play Store, so I could leave reviews and comments again.07/26/2014 - 11:03am
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician