ECA Prez on Schwarzenegger vs. EMA

The Escapist’s Russ Pitts met up with Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) President Hal Halpin at this year’s E3 Expo for a discussion of the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case, which has ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

After stating that a loss in the case could be “staggering and widespread,” in terms of its impact on gamers, Halpin was asked to describe the what’s at stake in “broad strokes.”

He answered:

The easiest way to boil it down so that you don’t have to think about it at all, and you want to make a decision about whether this is something you support or not is: If you’re a gamer, and you care about gaming, if you care about a relative who cares about gaming, then this is a no brainer.

The reason why is because if this law passes, if we fail, the repercussions would be profound and significant in ways that don’t impact other forms of entertainment. …. The ways in which it will impact things, it will impact lives of professionals, like the 45,000 people that are here, it can easily impact retail and how you interact with retailers, so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you’d have to shop for them like you’d shop for guns.

If that doesn’t bother you, then by all means, ignore us. If that is something that horrifies you in the same way it horrifies me, then please lend your voice to the choir.

If you have yet to sign the ECA petition, which will be submitted to the Court alongside an amicus brief, you can still do so here.

Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA

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


  1. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    The supreme court, more than any other branch of out goverment, follows the constitution as closely as possible. They will do the right thing in this situation.

  2. 0
    Chris Kimberley says:

    I believe the quote you are taking out of context was in relation to pornography, and using obsceneity laws, which are mostly unused at present IIRC, to prosecute pornographers.

    That said, stepping up enforcement could work as a prelude to expanding the definition of obscene.  Her position on the Steven’s case (that animal cruelty should b=not be considered protected speech) make this a definite concern.


    Chris Kimberley

  3. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Well, there is some potentially scary stuff coming to light about SCOTUS nominee Kagan.  She apparently not beyond "taking a fresh look at old approaches, such as obscenity laws."  Considering that the crux of many anti-games efforts involve loosely defined ideas of what is obscene, this is troubling.

    I presume that she would be sitting on the bench by the time this case is heard.

  4. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    The state does have a compelling interest in protecting the psychological wellbeing of children.  However, it has to:

    -Show that there is harm being done.  It hasn’t because there isn’t.

    -Show the law would protect them from said harm.  It hasn’t because it wouldn’t.

    -Show that the law will be more effective than what’s already out there.  It hasn’t because it’s not.

    Yeah, I will be very surprised if the state is successful.


    Andrew Eisen

Leave a Reply