ESA Touts Major Support for Games Industry in SCOTUS Fight

If you are having trouble keeping track of the number of amicus briefs that have been filed so far in favor of the game industry, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has the answers for you. The trade group representing game publishing companies announced that over 180 leading First Amendment experts, national organizations, non-profits, associations, researchers and social science experts filed amicus briefs on Friday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association/Entertainment Software Association.

All of the briefs had different approaches: some pointed out free speech issues, others pointed out overreach by the state of California and other state’s attorneys general said that this law would put an unneeded burden on law enforcement – which have better things to do like catch real criminals. Here is what the ESA’s top executive had to say about all these briefs:

"The depth, diversity and high quality of briefs submitted strengthens our position before the Court. These briefs are rooted in virtually every form of expression, commerce, social science, and constitutional jurisprudence imaginable," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association. "It is our hope that the Court will uphold an unbroken chain of lower court rulings that affirm video games’ First Amendment protections, the rights of consumers’ access to speech, and that parents – not government – are the best arbiters in determining what is right for their children."

Oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA begin Tuesday, November 2nd.

Update: Common Sense Media issued the following statement (Jim Steyer, CEO and founder, Common Sense Media) to GP:

"A Zogby International poll commissioned last month found that 72 percent of adults support a ban on the sale of ultraviolent video games to minors. Parents are concerned about the impact of violent games and they feel that the video game industry isn’t doing nearly enough to protect kids from accessing the most ultraviolent games. This law would not prohibit the video game industry from creating or selling these games.  Instead, it would simply reinforce that parents – not video game retailers – are the best arbiters in determining what is right for their young children."


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


  1. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    And for an alledged Constitutional law professor, it’s pretty obvious that Jim "Motard" Steyer doesn’t know jack about Constitutional law either. Hell, maybe even less than Thompson does, and that’s saying something.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

    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)

  2. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Oh, my Lord. You didn’t just repeat a legal opinion rendered by Jack Thompson, did you?

    Lemme hip to you how Jack’s feeble mind works: the only reason he’s saying it won’t pass muster is because he didn’t have anything to do with its drafting and passage. Had he been the one to draft the statute, he’d be telling you how "bullet-proof and iron-clad" it is. Jack ain’t doing nothing more than being a playa-hatin’ dickhead.  

    As Utah’s AG Shurtleff once said, "Apparently Mr. Thompson knows even less about criminal law than he does about constitutional law."

  3. 0
    mogbert says:

    "Parents are concerned…" "…they feel…"

    Oh well… sure, I guess that trumpts the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA!

    Look, even JT has said it doesn’t really stand a chance. But, based on his legal history, I got a second opinion from someone who was more capable in the field of law, F.O. Ron, who said that this appeal had no merit and… let me refer to my notes… "Millenium hand and shrimp."

  4. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Are they? I wasn’t on the circulation list for that memo. Pray tell, what is it about pornography, a protected form of speech, that presents the potential of harm to minors which videogames, another form of protected speech, does not? I spent most of my puberty whacking off to Hustler magazines and I ain’t either blind or hairy-palmed.  

  5. 0
    JDKJ says:

    "It is our hope that the Court will uphold an unbroken chain of lower court rulings that affirm . . . that parents – not government – are the best arbiters in determining what is right for their children."

    Or, as stated by the dissent in Ginsberg (upholding restriction of sales of pornography to minors),:

    "Today this Court sits as the Nation’s board of censors. With all respect, I do not know of any group in the country less qualified first, to know what obscenity is when they see it, and second, to have any considered judgment as to what the deleterious or beneficial impact of a particular publication may be on minds either young or old."

Leave a Reply