Duke Journal Analysis: Schwarzenegger v.EMA

February 10, 2011 -

The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy offers an exhaustive analysis of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association in an article called "The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association."

Beatrice M. Hahn dissects every aspect of the case - from the positions of both sides and the lack of data supporting the state's case, to free speech issues and the definition of obscenity. While the lengthy review of the case is interesting, readers will be more fascinated with the conclusions: the Supreme Court will probably rule against California's 2005 video game law.

From the last three paragraphs of the article:

"Nearly all of the analysis by the State and EMA revolved around standards of review, but the Court resurrected the issue of vagueness during oral arguments. The justices turned their attentions to how video game developers and distributors will struggle with interpreting the statute in order to comply with it. The language describing the types of games covered by the law (such as "deviant") are not easy to define, and it is unclear how the legislature differentiated video games from other media to limit the Act from reaching violent material in other formats. Distinguishing different levels of violence, which is necessary as only certain "offensively violent: content would be subject to regulation, is even more problematic. Video game manufacturers would also struggle with defining their audience, particularly with regard to age subgroups of minors, each of which could be more or less susceptible to negative influences than the other. These issues merit the Court’s attention, despite the lower courts’ neglect of the vagueness issue. It is therefore possible that the constitutionality of the statute will be decided on due process grounds, rather than clarifying how violent subject matter, transmitted in new forms of media, will be regulated. It would not be the first time that the Court has offered a narrow ruling with limited applicability.

If the Court does not invalidate the Act on vagueness grounds, a majority of the Court is likely to rely heavily on Stevens to find that violent video games are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Stevens demonstrates the Court’s unwillingness to create a carve-out for violent speech. The statute at issue was struck down by an 8-to-1 majority of the Roberts Court, and the justices in that majority probably will invalidate the Act here on similar grounds. The Roberts Court likely will not apply a softened standard of review to a content-based speech regulation of any medium.

There is a "history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly overreacting to them, thinking the sky is falling, [and that] our children are all going to be turned into criminals." Today’s objection to video games’ conveyance of violent speech and effort to curtail minors' access "springs largely from the neophobia that has pitted the old against the entertainment of the young for centuries." As long as the Court is not diverted entirely by the vagueness question, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association may settle the debate over depictions of violence that would otherwise arise repeatedly with the development of new media and vehicles of expression."


Comments

Re: Duke Journal Analysis: Schwarzenegger v.EMA

If only there was a way to sit in on that trial and play GTA on a PSP in the back. It'd be awesome.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Duke Journal Analysis: Schwarzenegger v.EMA

They've already got clerks playing Mortal Kombat...

Re: Duke Journal Analysis: Schwarzenegger v.EMA

You know what ? A couple of weeks ago, I actually DREAMT that the Supreme Court would actually approve this California Law

This being said, I also dreamt that I was thrown in jail, so...

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will limiting Steam services to accounts that have spent at least $5 eliminate spammers?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@mech no just she, nor her co workers have not. she never said it is not real.04/24/2015 - 8:58pm
MechaCrashWas she saying "I haven't experienced it," or "I haven't experienced it therefore it does not exist"?04/24/2015 - 8:31pm
ZippyDSMleeoy the skyrim paid mod thing is going over well. My 2 lints, I would not mind if Skyrim had a full SDK and not a crappy lil editor....04/24/2015 - 6:46pm
Andrew EisenWell, that is indeed crappy and nonsensical.04/24/2015 - 3:45pm
Matthew Wilsonshe got attacked for saying that she personaly has not experienced the harassment some other female devs have, and she got acused of defending GG and ignoring harassment. she ended up getting dog piled because of it.04/24/2015 - 3:43pm
Andrew EisenFine but do you recall ANY details at all?04/24/2015 - 3:38pm
Matthew Wilsonit was several weeks ago now, and I will admit to not saving it.04/24/2015 - 3:36pm
Andrew EisenAttacked HOW and by WHOM for not writing off WHO as evil? Do you have a link or anything?04/24/2015 - 3:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthat is the whole point she was not attacked for saying anything. she was attacked for being willing to debate in the first place, and not just write them off as evil.04/24/2015 - 3:28pm
Andrew EisenI know there's not a lot of room in the Shout box but goodness you're being vague.04/24/2015 - 3:26pm
Andrew EisenGreat, but that STILL doesn't tell me what she said, why she was attacked (or what the attack was) or what "standard line" she's following. Details, man. Details!04/24/2015 - 3:25pm
Andrew EisenOr what the heck Nina White (someone else I've never heard of) is actually referring to.04/24/2015 - 3:24pm
Matthew Wilson@AE she is a game dev. she used to do stuff with hormanix and now works with https://outact.net/#!/?page_id=2 she will often engage and debate both side.04/24/2015 - 3:23pm
Andrew Eisen...following.04/24/2015 - 3:23pm
Andrew EisenYou mean focus on stopping the bad behavior of those who are doing it rather than condemning all the people that associate with them? Great. But I still don't know who Emma Clarkson is, what she said, why she was attacked or what "standard line" she's04/24/2015 - 3:23pm
Matthew WilsonI think people are coming around to the idea that divide and conqueror might be a more effective method than scorched earth. scorched earth has been tried for 8 months with almost no progress, so its time try something new.04/24/2015 - 3:20pm
Andrew EisenCan you elaborate? I don't know who that is.04/24/2015 - 3:17pm
Matthew Wilsonas I understand just general difference of opinion. for example I have seen Emma Clarkson get attacked becouse she chooses to engage and debate, instead of just fallow the standard line.04/24/2015 - 3:13pm
Andrew Eisen'Cause if it's the latter, that kind of stuff should be shamed.04/24/2015 - 2:47pm
Andrew EisenAnd shaming women for being women or having an opinion or shaming specific women for exhibiting particularly repugnant attitudes or behaviors?04/24/2015 - 2:47pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician