Attorney Forecasts Supreme Court Decision, Wonders Why It Granted Cert

November 1, 2010 -

Over at Gamasutra, Attorney Greg Boyd has composed a detailed look at the California law at the center of Schwarzenegger v. EMA.  After a brief history lesson concerning what the law says and where it’s been over the last few years, Boyd speculates about how the Supreme Court may eventually rule.

“It would be surprising to the legal community if this case went against all the prior similar cases on content-based regulation. The consensus expectation is that this case will fit with the other state cases on this issue (and the two lower court decisions in California). The preliminary injunction will likely be upheld and the statute will likely be held unconstitutional.”

As Boyd points out, the Supreme Court typically grants cert for cases that federal courts in different parts of the country are split on.  Of course, as we all know, there is no spit on this issue.  There have been 12 attempts in the last eight years to impose a state-level regulation on video games and each one has failed.  So, with the precedent cases being unanimous, why is the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. EMA tomorrow?

“Is it that all of the other courts have gotten it wrong? Perhaps the strict scrutiny standard applied above, and commonly throughout the other content-based regulation cases, is the incorrect standard. Perhaps this is a case of the High Court stepping in to settle the issue in a more final way.

The Court could see that, clearly, the states are not "getting it" with the other cases, and they know this type of legislation has already cost the state taxpayers more than $2 million in reimbursed legal fees.”

Read the whole shebang over at Gamasutra and try not to lose too much sleep over the next few months while the Supreme Court makes its decision.

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen


Comments

Re: Attorney Forecasts Supreme Court Decision, Wonders Why ...

It could be because this is a court with a new conservative majority, and they want to set a new standard for artistic expression, a more narrow standard, and also give more leeway to states as well.

That is what you'd expect a conservative majority to do, and this majority is new. So I think looking back at precedent of the past may not be as useful now as it use to be.
 

Re: Attorney Forecasts Supreme Court Decision, Wonders Why ...

Mmmmaybe.  But as we've discussed at length in these comments threads, free speech versus censorship seldom falls under straight liberal-versus-conservative lines.  I still expect a victory for the EMA; Thomas, at least, is reliable on free speech issues, and I expect Kennedy to side with the EMA as well.

Re: Attorney Forecasts Supreme Court Decision, Wonders Why ...

If SCOTUS Rules in favor of the industry(And I expect it alongside Attorney Greg Boyd(Note I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a hunch we'll Win)) Hope The Decision is Giftwrapped as an early christmas present

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Attorney Forecasts Supreme Court Decision, Wonders Why ...

"Perhaps this is a case of the High Court stepping in to settle the issue in a more final way"

I think me and a few other gamers were thinking the same thing when the scouts announced they'll heard the case in question

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician