Yee, Pysch Associations Will File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court on California Violent Video Game Law Appeal

Via press release, GamePolitics has learned that California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) will be joined by a pair of mental health organizations in filing an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief with the United States Supreme Court tomorrow in support of the state’s petition to overturn a 9th Circuit Court ruling that California’s 2005 violent video game law – drafted by Yee – is unconstitutional.

The official announcement will be made at 10:00 A.M. Pacific Time by Yee and representatives of the California Psychiatric and California Psychological Associations. Sen. Yee is a child psychologist by trade.

GamePolitics will have more – including a copy of the brief – in our Wednesday coverage.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Bigman-K says:

    That’s true. How can a man vote against a law banning toxic plastic in children’s toys (something that actually does harm children) yet trump the "We must protect the children" bullshit when what he’s is trying to restrict is not harmful to children whatsoever. Leland Yee = hypocritical nanny-statist douchebag.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  2. Bennett Beeny says:

    If Leland Yee is a child psychologist, why is he going against the body of scientific knowledge that shows that violent games are not harmful to kids?  You’d think a professional would keep up with the latest info.

  3. CrimsonCrane says:

    Wow, I totally appreciate Yee wasting even more of my hard earned money on another completely pointless game law. I mean, let’s not worry about the south american drug cartels that are getting a stronger grasp on the bigger cities all over the state. Let’s not give law enforcement a better budget to help with inner-city gang problems. Why should we worry about the fact that we rank 49th in the country in education? It’s those video games that are the problem!

    Keep sucking up to those special interest groups, Yee. The empty-headed, doe-eyed, ignorant fossils in the Eagle Forum are only going to cost you a city or three when some Columbian drug lord decides that San Diego would be nice to just have. Moron.

  4. JDKJ says:

    Don’t quote me on this, but I believe that once the Petitioner has paid their filing costs to initiate the action, everyone else gets to ride for free. Short answer: it don’t cost an amicus nothing to file their brief. At least, not in terms of any actual filing fees.

    But, seriously, unless you can point to some peculiar knowledge or expertise which your sharing with the Court will aid its decision-making process, then it’s unlikely that the Court will look kindly upon your request for amicus status. Not to say that you can’t so point. Just to say that you should.

    And you should also be aware that, in my observations, the Court tends to favor amici who are institutional or organizational in nature over those who present themselves in an individual capacity. Perhaps the thinking, right or wrong, is that institutional knowledge and/or expertise is always greater than and superior to the knowledge and/or expertise of any one individual. So, if you are seriously considering the possiblity, it’d probably be best if you align yourself with some organization having a institutional history which bears some relevance to the matter before the Court. Perhaps the ECA will join forces with you?

  5. JDKJ says:

    Thanks, Dawg.

    The July 22 deadline is only the deadline by which the Respondents (i.e., Video Software Dealers Association, et al.) must file their responsive pleading to the State’s petition for certiorari (this date is actually an extension of the original deadline by which their pleadings should have been filed). This doesn’t mean that all filings in the matter are closed after that date. It simply means that the Respondents must file their response by that date.  Because (a) the Respondents haven’t even filed their response yet and (b) a conference date has yet to be set, I wouldn’t be expecting the Court’s decision any time in the very near future. 

    Which gives you plenty of time in which to seek amicus status and file your amicus brief, nightywind2K. If Andrew Schlafly gets to file his piece of utter garbage-rot, then I ain’t seeing no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to chip your two cents into the matter. 

  6. JDKJ says:

    Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve never understood why it’s so difficult for some to understand that the government doesn’t have any money which it didn’t, some way or another, squeeze out of the pockets of the people.

  7. Zerodash says:

    Obama’s not covering the debt, its the people who actually were responsible with their finances and stable, honest businesses that are paying the debt. 

    Welcome to the new Socialist utopia- where the responsible, prudent, and most productive pick up the tab for reckless irresponsible dipshits.


  8. JDKJ says:

    I’m not looking at the docket, so I’m not sure to what the deadline specifically applies but every permission to file anything granted by the Court has a deadline attached to it and, if a filing in response to that filing is allow by right, then the Court’s Rules will specify the time within which that responsive pleading must be filed. And, even then, a deadline isn’t hard and fast. A party, for good cause, can always request of the Court that a deadline be extended. And unless the party has absolutely no good reason why they’re bumping up against the deadline, the Court will usually grant an extension of time in which to file. 

    But as a general matter, until the docket indicates a date on which the case will be "distributed for conference," you can assume that the pimple’s nowhere near coming to a head. As you can also assume that very shortly after the conference is held (I believe it is the Monday immediately following the week in which the conference was held) that a decision will be published.

    If you make my life easy and share with me the Case No., I’ll eyeball the docket and give you more case-specific information. But I can’t recall who the Respondents are and using "State of California" as a party search term will no doubt generate more hits than Carter’s got lil’ green liver pills.

  9. nightwng2000 says:

    As to the Media Coalition, the ones we’re told are supposedly leading the charge on behalf of the ECA and others…

    According to their site, the last update on the issue was at the end of May.  They don’t even reference the Eagle Forum’s filing.

    Could it be that if they did, someone would be asking "Where’s YOUR response"?

    Now we have Yee and the gang adding to the misinformation, lies, and deceit.  They’ll be adding their incompetent and incomplete fraudulent "studies".  Implying that video games are unique among everything else in existance.  (Of course, they won’t mention that those fraudulent studies never actually compared and/or contrasted anything else, let alone actually took the complexity of each individual subject into account.)

    JDKJ, explain to me the line in the SCOTUS docket that says the deadline to file is… well, gee, it’s tomorrow.  Yet some are saying that a decision won’t be heard for a couple of months?  Or maybe something is getting lost in the translation for me.  But from what I read, tomorrow is it for a response.

    Yeah, maybe it won’t be heard by SCOTUS.  But I would think that so many big wigs who think Freedom of Speech is worth fighting for and think the stereotypes about those who have an interest in any number of media products should be fought would actually rush to put out a response.

    And if the court DOES decide to hear the case, it would seem to me they’ve already heard enough from the opposition to become sufficiently biased on the issue.  After all, no one is challenging the claims at this point.  And we know that the soon to be newest judge, among a few others, are already biased when it comes to their decisions on the bench.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  10. Zerodash says:

    Actually, "wise latinas" are more intelligent than everyone else.  I saw that on the news.

  11. jedidethfreak says:

    I’m sure it was.  He was commenting on the extremist belief that if you disagree with a minority – for any reason – you must be racist.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  12. BearDogg-X says:

    I hope that was sarcasm.

    It don’t matter if he’s from San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Death Valley, Yee’s still wrong.

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

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  13. Zerodash says:

    I noticed that too. It’s amusing to see how often the far-right and the far-left actually agree with one another…at least as far as outcomes are concerned.  And yet, both sides are more interested in bickering with each other when they could achieve their goals with some simple cooperation.

    This paradox happens fairly often with media censorship.  It’s similar to how Christian zealots and Radical Feminists are both opposed to sex (not just porn) and yet, they refuse to capitalize on their common ground.

    …I guess that’s a good thing or we’d all be in trouble.

  14. jedidethfreak says:

    But Obama is going to cover California’s debt, right?  I mean, he’s covered the debt of failing companies and homeowners who took out loans they couldn’t afford, surely he’d help out fellow Dems.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  15. Neo_DrKefka says:

     Well all the conservatives have left the state most businesses have left the state because the Unions and jobs are going like Illinois and Michigan.  Basically Liberals keep voting each other back in and we are seeing no real change. 

    However, here in Illinois it is looking like the politics of the land are changing. The surrounding cities around Chicago are and have voted for Secession in the Illinois 2009 elections from Cook County (Google it for more information) and the Governor and Senate seat most likely will change into Republican hands.
    Most Democrats are trying to now run as Republicans in this state for there 2010 elections because they know they are going to loose fast. The Daley-Obama-Stroger Democrats are still under the delusion you can keep doing what you want with no accountability.
  16. Doom90885 says:

    I know this has been brought up before but the biggest insult of all is the damn state is going bankrupt at lightning speed and the state is wasting valuable money on this garbage. Look at all the money they spent on Jackson’s funeral and then add this on top. California has some nerve to be crying bankruptcy. If they’re offred stimulus money again I shudder to think where it will be spent.


    If you don’t want government involvement in your backyard, THEN STOP ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE EVERY LITTLE DECISION FOR YOU!

  17. killatia says:

    I wonder if anyone pro-gaming gonna go file a amcicus brief or something simlaer to it? I want to hear more thay "people who lies about studies are begging the court to pass they bad bad laws"

  18. PHX Corp says:

    There is Stare decisis(for those who know the 7th 8th and most recently the 9th circuit court struck down similar laws, effectivly locking down future video game laws (automatically affirming stare decisis)


    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  19. nightwng2000 says:

    The California Psychological Association:

    Gee, even a "Legislature’s Guide":

    Oh, and look, statistics:

    Wonder if they’ll mention the stats on family histories with mental health problems or any of the other general stats.  Or if they’re just going to do the Yee thing and scapegoat (ie lie and deceive throught their dishonorable, unethical) rotten teeth.

    And the California Psychiatric Association:

    I do notice that both sites are rather silent on the issue of taking an active part in support of an Unconstitutional bill.  Perhaps they are afraid to be caught in more lies and deceit.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  20. PHX Corp says:

    Once california’s appeal is denied or rendered unable to be heard, I’ll retire in style(sarcasm)

    I’ll notify the site If I find out on SCOTUS blog

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  21. BearDogg-X says:

    I think SCOTUSBlog will report more when the Supreme Court’s next term starts in October.

    If there’s still nothing by then, then SCOTUS definitely will not hear California’s appeal(because SCOTUSBlog only mentions cases if they have a good shot at getting heard).

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

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  22. PHX Corp says:

    indefinnatly it’s the end of the censorship war as is(pushing it behind the senes)

    but it’s not being reported at SCOTUSBlog(Through New filings so most likely it’ll not appear on the petitions to watch) so it’s a possibility that the law may not be granted(This is very diffrent than FTS v FCC)

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

Comments are closed.