Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

August 23, 2010 -

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 10 AM ET is when oral arguments will be made in front of the Supreme Court of the United States for case number 08-1448, better known as Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

The one-hour long session is the first on that day’s calendar (PDF) and will see the Court answer a pair of questions related to a California state law originally authored by State Senator Leland Yee, which sought to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.

The two questions posed to the Court are:

1.  Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?

2.  If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

The Court, unfortunately for all of us waiting, has no set time table under which it must decide on the case and/or issue a decision, other than it must be decided before the Court’s summer recess begins, which is usually at the end of June.

More on arguments from the Supreme Court website:

During an argument week, the Justices meet in a private conference, closed even to staff, to discuss the cases and to take a preliminary vote on each case. If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a case decision, he decides who will write the opinion. He may decide to write it himself or he may assign that duty to any other Justice in the majority. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the Justice in the majority who has the most seniority assumes the assignment duty.

Also, if you were wondering where new Chief Justice Elena Kagan would be sitting, wonder no more as SCOTUS has also released the Court’s new seating chart. Kagan will be sitting to the left of Justice Samuel Alito, all the way on the right side of the Court as viewing it from the audience.

Comments

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

Oops, read that wrong. Preliminary vote is after arguments. It seemed dubious they would vote even before that time.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

I didn't get that from the post...I think it's saying a vote will be held during arguments week which is Nov. 2.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

So is the preliminary vote before or after oral arguments are completed?

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

My understanding, which could be flawed, is that it is after.  Anyone know different?

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unit... this meeting is directly after oral arguments. There probably isn't anything preventing them from conferring amongst each other prior to oral argument, but that's not likely what the SCOTUS website was talking about.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

I have 2 games preordered from the UK if this censorship bill passes. With games not being free speech anymore the states can ban all blood, gore, dismemberment, sexual content, etc. Leaving us with what Germany and Australia have for their games.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

1. It's not a question of passing a bill.  The bill has already been passed; it's a law and it's being challenged in the Supreme Court.

2. It doesn't ban any content; it bans violent games being sold to minors.  While I think that's a bad thing and fundamentally oppose it, it's not what you're describing at all.

3. Suggesting the UK puts more stock in free speech than the US is a bit of an oversimplification.  While they certainly allow, for example, more adult content in their broadcast TV, they don't have a First Amendment like we do.  There are much stronger restrictions on political speech and the like.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

Games are a form of speech and thus should be protected. The people who are so adamant about banning them just refuse to acknowledge that.They're just going through what video game,s movie,s music, hell, al lforms of media have before.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

"[Under strick scrutiny] is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?"

As I understand it, the state has to do more than just show that there's something out there psychologically harming children that the state needs to protect them from, it also has to show that the law will protect them from said harm (it won't) and show that the law is more effective than the measures already out there (it isn't).

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Andrew EisenHave gamers ever tried to ban a product? Can you be more specific? I'm not clear what you're getting at.07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Mattsworknamethey should have expected some kind of blow back. But I didn't participate in that specific action07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MattsworknameAndrew Youd have to ask others about that, I actualyl didn't have much beef with them till last year, so I can't speak to there history. I simply feel that gamesutra chose politics over gaming and chose to make enimies of it's prime audiance. For that,07/28/2015 - 8:40pm
Andrew EisenI'm still not clear on how Gamasutra was lacking in accountability or what it was lacking in accountability for.07/28/2015 - 8:38pm
MattsworknameAndrew: You and I agree on most of that. I don't diagree that there should ahve been other actions taken. Now, I do want to point something out, casue Im not sure if it's happened. Have gamers ever tried to have a product banned?07/28/2015 - 8:37pm
Mattsworknameimproperly. Neither is good, but one is on the edge of censorship to me, while the other is demanding some level of accountability from public media provider. but thats just my view point07/28/2015 - 8:36pm
MattsworknameEZK: You can treat it as bullying or what not, As I've pointed out, I didn't like either practice, I made that clear. But I do hold some different between trying to pull a product from the shelves, and calling out a media outlet that you feel has acted07/28/2015 - 8:35pm
E. Zachary KnightMatt, So you feel confident enough to make the call that petitioning target to remove GTAV is "bullying and threatening" but not confident enough to make the call on Intel/Gamasutra. Finding it hard to take your gripes seriously.07/28/2015 - 8:27pm
Andrew EisenAs for gamers holding media sites accountable? If you mean, how to respond to opinion pieces you disagree with, yes, there are tons of more appropriate means.07/28/2015 - 8:27pm
Andrew EisenAgain, no one likes being lumped in with the bad apples. Gamers or feminists so lets all strive not to do that, yes? Could the petitioners gone about it a better way? Yes, it could have been more factual in its petition, for starters.07/28/2015 - 8:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician