SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

October 27, 2010 -

The SCOTUS Blog gives us a preview of the arguments we can expect from both sides of the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association review before the Supreme Court on November 2. Deputy state attorney general Zackery P. Morazzini will argue for California (Jerry Brown is busy campaigning for Governor of the state), and Paul M. Smith of Jenner & Block will be arguing for the video game industry.

This is a great read because it covers everything about the case that you could possibly imagine, but the bit below sums up a general feeling about the SCOTUS taking up the case in the first place:

One of the briefs, from the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment and the Brechner First Amendment Project, implied that the Court may have taken on more of a societal challenge than it realized when it granted review of the case. By granting the petition, it commented, “the Court now stands primed to wade deeply into the culture war over media violence. This is a surreal, surrogate and substitute war…for addressing the problems of real-world violence, as California and other government entities play the media blame game…It also is a war over censorship.” What the Court is being asked to sustain, that brief said dismissively, is “feel-good legislation.”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted in

Comments

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

If there was anything that would have helped California convey to the court how serious they were about this issue and that would have helped it stand a chance, it was having their very own Attorney General stand before them to make the case personally.  However, since Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown won't be there as he is campaigning (and will probably fail...again) and having some other guy nobody's really heard of instead, their argument won't come across as strong as it would have otherwise.  Again, just goes to show what the state's priorities are.

It sounds like the stakes on this really are far higher than we realized.  And that this may indeed be the final word on not just video game violence, but ALL depictons of violence in media.  I relly hope, then, for a favorable outcome.  I think however that since they know that this really is a piece of "feel-good" legislation, and that those types of laws ultimately do nothing, that they may have already made their minds up and will reaffirm the lower court rulings

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

I like to think the Supreme Court is not swayed by name recognition of attorneys.

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

Honestly, that's probably a bit naive.  Certainly its not the main thing they'll be focusing on, but it could have some *small* impact.  It's been pointed out multiple times that thinking the SCOTUS judges are perfectly objective machines is not realistic.  Not saying the name recognition of the lawyers will be main issue, but it could have some small impact.

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

"It's been pointed out multiple times that thinking the SCOTUS judges are perfectly objective machines is not realistic."

Of course it isn't, but that's not the same thing as deducting points from an argument because somebody other than a state AG showed up to argue it.

Now, if he's a worse lawyer than the AG, then yeah, it's going to hurt his case.  And the Justices' own personal biases will play in on some level -- that's why we can say things like "Alito will probably side with California and Thomas with EMA."  But that's not the same thing as taking the argument less seriously because somebody other than the AG showed up.

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

This wait is killing me.  To me, for videogames to lose First Amendment protection is basically a death sentence to the entire medium, as I will not abide a situation where the only games are designed for children in mind.   This court decision had better come fast so I can determine if I need a new hobby or not.

Re: SCOTUS Blog Schwarzenegger v. EMA Preview

Not ot mention the people who play part in getting first ammendment protections removed from video games are unlikely to stop there.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonmy god....... people need to play life is strange. its a very very dark version of twin peaks08/01/2015 - 12:56pm
DocMelonheadLook, I know that you guys wanted to study Gamergate; hell, one of your writers were Interviewing KiA on the subject (He's been banned from GamerGhazi). Sadly, the minorities veiwed Gamergate the same way as WBC at best, and Nazis at worst.08/01/2015 - 12:31pm
DocMelonheadIP wanted you to know that GamerGate is about Harassing minorities into submission, not "Ethnics in Journalism". It been a year since the Zoe Post was published and sparked a hate mob on Zoe Quinn.08/01/2015 - 12:28pm
DocMelonheadThat what's IP's goal is here in regard to gamergate: to get you guys to disassociate yourselves from the harassers that made all those claims up to threaten the advocates of social justice for minorities.08/01/2015 - 12:24pm
DocMelonheadIP tries to demonize all of GamerGate and it's supporters, along with those who didn't outright condemn it as a cover for a hate mob full of bigots.08/01/2015 - 12:20pm
MechaCrashNo, IP is trying to dehumanize you, I'm just pointing out that you're a hypocrit who makes bad faith arguments.08/01/2015 - 11:56am
Andrew EisenAnd I'm off too. Play nice, y'all!08/01/2015 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenIn short, discussions of ethics in journalism? Totally fine. Said indie dev's sex life? Not okay.08/01/2015 - 11:31am
james_fudgeTry talking when you have hundreds of people tweeting at you at the same time :)08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Andrew EisenAnd yet, when 30-seconds of research showed that there was no relevance to said indie dev's sex life, many people kept talking about. Hell, still do to this day. I had a guy on Twitter pester me about this nonsense for an entire day last weekend.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
james_fudgeWhatever dude, you're here posting. No one's stopping you.08/01/2015 - 11:30am
Goth_SkunkBe advised: In approximately 30 minutes I'm heading out of town for an obligatory family reunion. This is being stated so that none can interpret my upcoming 24 hour hiatus as a tail-tucking turn from discussion.08/01/2015 - 11:28am
Goth_SkunkEven now, IronPatriot, MechaCrash, and Craig R. continue to attempt to shout me down and dehumanize me.08/01/2015 - 11:25am
Goth_SkunkWhat transpired afterwards was a concerted effort to shout down and dehumanize those trying to bring these matters out into the open. I remain utterly convinced of this to this day.08/01/2015 - 11:24am
Goth_SkunkAnd yet the sex life of this indie developer tied right into the matter of journalistic ethics, as investigations uncovered a great number of breaches of ethical conduct, both related & not. That scandal is the orifice from which the balloon is inflated.08/01/2015 - 11:20am
MechaCrashI am reminded of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon.08/01/2015 - 11:13am
Andrew EisenThis is supported by, well, what actually happened, but also the text of the actual leaks. That was Tito's question and what he and a few (four total, I think) were discussing.08/01/2015 - 11:11am
Andrew EisenNo, it's not. What was generally prohibited was not discussion of journalistic ethics or other GamerGate topics, but threads that were, for example, discussing the sex life of an indie developer. THOSE are what were locked and removed.08/01/2015 - 11:10am
Goth_SkunkI don't believe you. Not for a second. Every major site with the exception of the Escapist prohibited discussion of GamerGate in its early stages. That is a fact.08/01/2015 - 11:04am
Andrew EisenNo, that's a fact. Don't believe me, read 'em yourself. No one was trying to censor discussion of GamerGate.08/01/2015 - 11:02am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician