U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in California Violent Video Game Law Appeal

July 23, 2009 -

Sometime this fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review California's appeal of lower court rulings striking down its 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the video game industry submitted its position to the Court.

In a 41-page brief compiled by attorney Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, the game industry relies heavily on precedents set by a history of failed attempts by state and local governments to impose age-based restrictions on video games. Indeed, the game biz has never lost such a case and Smith has been their successful point man for many years. From the brief:

Despite [California's] efforts to conjure up some argument for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, in reality the decision is a routine application of established First Amendment principles to a content-based ban on protected expression.

Petitioners offer no persuasive reason for the Court to review this ruling. There is no split of
[past decisions] on the questions presented. To the contrary, the lower courts are unanimous as to the constitutionality of bans on distribution of violent video games. That is unsurprising...

California was not the first state to try to restrict distribution of video games it considered too violent for minors. Such laws have proved politically popular, but every one has been struck down under the First Amendment...

Smith and his fellow attorney also dig into California's assertion that children should be legally shielded from violent video games as they are from obscenity. California's causation arguments, which attempt to link violent video games to violent behavior, are also taken to task.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the game industry brief here (41-page PDF)...


Comments

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in ...

Personally, I'm hoping they do take the case, and slap the **** out of it. Maybe then we won't have to go through every state wanting to pass their own anti-video game law.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in ...

There was a previous court case that delt with violence and media,in fact it was the very first case dealing with violence. this case was ruled that violent media is protected speech

In Winters v. New York (1948), Justice Stanley Reed, writing for the majority, protected entertainment from infringement by ruling that "[t]he line between … informing and … entertaining is too elusive … . Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda as fiction. What is one man's amusement, teaches another's doctrine” (see also Cohen v. California, 1971). That was an important ruling because Winters is one of the few Supreme Court cases that deal with the question of the effect of violence in the media. The state of New York had arrested New York City bookseller Winters under a statute that prohibited the sale of stories of bloodshed. After three arguments before the Supreme Court, the law was deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that it was too vague.

 

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

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in ...

Its about time the gaming industry said something to the supreme court. I was getting sick hearing from the anti-gaming group all the time about this stupid law.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in ...

It would be nice if they chose to take this bill just so they could rip the shit out of it. But really, they do have more important things to be looking at then one state's insane quest to ban entertainment.

Huh, when it's phrased like that it does seem kind of important :P

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States its Case in ...

I'd really like to know what's going on through their heads. Your state is broke but your going to waste even more time and money fighting to pass a law which has been consistantly struck down as unconstitutional? What are they thinking?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

As I stated before, I almost hope the Supreme Court chooses to review this petition (remember, they can choose to do nothing).  As this brief notes, the lower courts have been unanimous in their assertion of First Amendment rights over video games, particularly since no one has successfully argued that games targeted by those laws are (legal defined as) "obscene."  So it is incredibly unlikely that the Supreme Court would go against precidence, and they would uphold the lower courts' decisions.

If that happened, it would pretty much stick a pin in any other politicians' plans to try and pass video game legislation in order to garner support from family organizatons.  It would also mean that our ol' buddy JT would have a much harder time selling his bullshit in the form of State bills that waste everyone's time.  Hell, even the Eagle Forum wouldn't be able to bully any Representatives into sponsoring video game legislation.

Unfortunately, the Court is most likely to pass on this petition, having much more important issues to deal with.  But at least that would kill the California bill for good.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

If SCOTUS passes on it will that really kill it for good? Is there anything that says California can't try again, other than common sense? Maybe JDKJ can chime in on this one.

 

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

Oh, of course they could try again.  But it would kill THIS bill, if nothing else.  They've been fighting to get this bill passed for 4 years now.

Now, could they start all over with a differently worded bill?  Yes.  But quite honestly California has way bigger issues on their plate at the moment.  Things are a lot worse now than they were in 2005.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

I think that if the Supremes granted certiorari, heard the State fully on the merits, then bitch-slapped them all into next week while screaming, "Why are you wasting everyone's time and money with this nonsense?!," those idiots up in Sacramento would be huddling together the very next week, plotting the introduction of their next piece of anti-videogame legislation.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

The only thing that would kill it permanently would be if SCOTUS took the case and ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  Deciding not to hear it does not mean they couldn't come back later.

---

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.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

I guess technically there's nothing stopping the State from refiling another Petition for Certiorari on the same matter but doing so, with the Court having already declined to hear the matter, is much akin to the job-seeker who's been told, "Hell'll freeze over before we hire your dumb ass" and keeps on sending in his resume.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

You're right, but if SCOTUS justices were to change again, they'd have no choice but to review the cert petition again.

---

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.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

Provided you satisfy all the technical filing requirements, all Petitions for Certorari are reviewed, regardless of whether the composition of the bench has changed and whether it's the 100th time the same Petition is being filed. Keep it up, thought, and the Court may order you to show cause why they shouldn't hold you in contempt for frivolous filings. But that doesn't mean they don't have to review and rule on frivolous filings.  

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

I think it's time to raise some $$ and mail a copy of the Bill of Rights to Yee and all the other politicians who are trying to circumvent it.  They need a reminder to stop wasting everyone's time and tax $$.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

Don't bother sending one to a certain ex-and-never-to-be-again lawyer, he'll think you sent him toilet paper.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

Then again, Pee-Pee Yee and the rest of those brain-dead idiots will also think that you sent them toilet paper.

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: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

This is not going to get cert. As the ESA brief says, there is no Circuit Split, in fact there is unanimity on this issue. If the Court takes this it will only be so that they can blanket say "no more, we're coming down"

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

If this passes then polititions will soon try to have games banned from adults, then owning a violent game will be illegal. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

While I have no doubt that some of them would like to do that, I highly doubt that they could.

Look at porn, banning the sale of porn to minors has been ruled constitutional in 1968. It's been over 40 years and despite the best efforts by the morality police it's still legal for an adult to purchase porn.

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

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: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

The trouble is that if games are classified as porn, as is one avenue of attack these people use, then the medium will only cater to the sleaze factor. 

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

It's over. We're screwed.

As a gamer and a Californian, this can't end good. If it passes, the gaming industry takes a hit. Or more likely, it won't pass, and California goes into even greater debt due to wasted millions in legal fees.

Whoever wins, we lose.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

Look at the bright side. Jenner & Block get to collect some hefty legal fees at a time when law firms are laying off associates and partners by the thousands. Maybe the positive impact to their bottom line will forestall them having to send some of their employees out to join the swelling ranks of the unemployed. Or, hopefully, Mr. Smith will spend some of that newly-acquired wealth in California. Every dark cloud has some sort of silver lining . . . if you look hard enough.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

I seriously hope you're right. If Jenner & Block are stationed in CA, then it might offer some jobs in the legal careers, and somehow pass that onto CA's citizens. With any luck, the gaming industry will get a hefty sum as well, most of which are here in CA as well. Yes, I can see how this might come back to us. But that is best case senario.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court: Video Game Biz States it Case in ...

If you were using hyperbole, I apologize, but the legal fees won't be anywhere near the "millions" mark, and they probably won't even approach a million dollars.  Most of the legal reimbursements have been around $150,000 average, IIRC.

Of course, every little bit hurts when you're flat broke...

"De minimus non curat lex"

"De minimus non curat lex"
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
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
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician