The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), the nonprofit organization which represents gamers in the U.S. and Canada, has filed a 44-page amicus brief in support of the video game industry (and consumers... and sanity) with the U.S. Supreme Court this evening. You can grab the PDF here.
Co-signing onto the ECA brief are such notable organizations as: the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Public Knowledge and Students for Free Culture.
While there is a lot to sift through in this massive document, the most interesting point made on behalf of consumers is the following (taken from the arguments section):
"Video game consumers have First Amendment rights that must be protected from the state’s interference. The First Amendment protects a person’s right to choose what information or entertainment he or she wishes to receive, just as it protects a speaker’s or author’s right to speak or publish what he or she wishes to say. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). Without this corollary right, the marketplace of ideas would not work, as speakers and publishers would not have audiences with whom to transact."
Oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association are scheduled for November 2.
(I would like to personally thank every gamer that took the time to sign the ECA's petition. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the game industry, it will be due in no small part to all of you.)
Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA.
Comments
Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed
Does anyone know a final count on how many signed the petition?
Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed
As far as I know, the only thing the ECA has said in that regard is "tens of thousands."
Andrew Eisen
Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed
I don't think it matters much whether tens of thousands or tens of millions. The Court is unlikely to ascribe any weight at all to a list of petition signatures no matter the number. It's not a court of public opinion. It's a court of law to which its members -- thankfully -- aren't elected by popular vote. They're appointed for lifetime tenure. One of the intents of lifetime tenure -- at least in theory -- is to allow the Court to rise above the political fray and render decisions regardless of how popular or unpopular those decisions may be. Indeed, many of the Court's more profound decisions have been made in the face of overwhelming public opposition to those decisions (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education).