
The
Media Coalition announced yesterday that its members have filed an
amicus ("friend of the court") brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in opposition to the State of California's attempt to resurrect its failed 2005 video game law.
As
GamePolitics readers will recall, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte
ruled in August, 2007 that the California law, proposed by State Sen. Leland Yee (D)* was unconstitutional. At the direction of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), the state promptly filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit.
In filing the brief, the Media Coalition is essentially arguing on behalf of the video game industry plaintiffs in the case. The suit against the California law was originally brought by the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The VSDA, now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association, represents video game retailers, while the ESA represents video game publishers.
The Media Coalition's press release explains the purpose of the brief:
The Media Coalition members’ amicus brief in the appeal argues that the state's claim is contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court and Courts Of Appeal precedent and could lead to a wide array of mainstream books, magazines, movies, videos, recordings, and other material with violent content becoming subject to regulation.
Additionally, the brief argues that the terms used to define a "violent video game" are unconstitutionally vague and the labeling requirement is unconstitutional compelled speech and a content-based requirement.
Media Coalition members signing on to the brief include the
Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of Recording Merchandisers, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
Read the amicus brief
here (pdf).
* Yee was an Assemblyman at the time the video game bill was passed and signed into law. He was elected to the California Senate in 2006.
Full Disclosure Dept: The Entertainment Consumers Association is the parent company of
GamePolitics.
Comments
As a fellow resident of California I must answer:
ITS FOR TEH CHILDRUNS!
Roads are for grownups and who reads anymore?
Nevertheless, it's an interesting group with many book groups backing the opposition.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Like most if not all of the non-game related opponents, it would be forward thinking, enlightened self interest that is motivating them. Again strange to see the RIAA involved in anything forward thinking...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Someone smarter than you, and me, and pretty much any living person today
Does it really matter though? While they may be protecting their own interests, they're a *very* powerful group, and they're part of the "old" media that's more accepted.
I think that's the most positive thing out of this, is that we're finally getting the "old" media behind us...cuz they're right, if this passes it's not as much of a stretch to try and say that violent graphic novels should be banned or subject to fines for sales.
Guessing they don't for fear of the rating that would be applied to the Bible.
Since all of the various so called new media, such as video games or the "web 2.0 convergence," are fusions of multiple old media content types, old media companies have a vested interest in keeping them alive and unregulated - they're simply ensuring their safe harbors are still safe for when the time comes that they have no choice but to abandon their traditional business model.
Even if books were rated most religious martial would get a pass, so would documentaries and a few other genres.
I think we could rated all mediums and keep adult/mature media out of the hands of minors but...its like ending poverty and other good intention plans, humans will cock it up they always do.
MPAA made X it was baned changed to NC17 it was snubed, ESRB made AO its snubbed and baned by the industry, the BBFC,ect bans stuff by inaction or snubbing it.
only a sane society can bind media to the sale of minors and make it work without snubbing sanity.
I'm pretty sure that money is the main motivation for some of these groups to get in on the fight. Especially the RIAA.
Technically, no.
But the Library of Congress, especially the National Library Service, has been putting some content labels in descriptions for audiobooks that they loan out.
While I have a wide reading range, sometimes, and I freely admit this, I DO look for books labeled "Explict Descriptions of Sex".
What? I'm an adult.
Do I think there should be a ratings system for reading material (books, newspapers, magazines, etc), sometimes I DO think so. A voluntary one like the ESRB or MPAA, but still one that Parents can look at and make their own decisions if they want to let their child read a particular book or not. On occasion, a Parent might want to give their child a more advanced book, and while searching books they aren't familiar with, at least a set of content descriptors would be helpful.
It would also help me track down the really perverse books to read/listern to... uh, did I say that out loud? ;)
I think some people, though, are afraid to go that route because of some of the outright blunt descriptors that would appear on some very well loved text. Like religious text for example. After all, how many would want their religious text labeled "Adult Only". And how much of an uproar would there be if one religion's text were described "negatively" while another was given the "soft touch"?
And even outside of religious text. Some excellent written text would, or could, be given some rather nasty descriptors.
Remember, the individual making such decisions has their own beliefs and even the general public could influence what is or is not described.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Lawrence Walters presented this quote at his GDC presentation. I really like it a lot.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Justice Potter Stewart
I believe that quote is from Benjamin Franklin, but I could be wrong.
For any members of the video game industry, it would be prodigal to give Yee any lobbying money at all as he has basically declare himself an enemy over this. Yee's behavior over this is an opprobrium to the state of California.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
I would like to throw in this quote:
"The complexity of our modern civilization is subject to diminishing returns. Complex systems collapse when they have no way to get simpler other than collapse."
Bull! If the RIAA still sues people for ungodly amounts of money over music downlaods then they still sue people for ungodly amounts over music downloads. This changes nothing. Sure we may be working together to achieve a common goal (Strength in numbers) but still this does not excuse the RIAA.
This is good news over all though.
The RIAA campaign against P2P has been a PR disaster for them. However, even before this happened the RIAA was not exactly interested in being hip with consumers...
Hopefully, this will encourage more organizations to realize that while this may start with video games, it could also head their way as well.
Yeah tell me about it, the same RIAA that sues everyone up to and including your grandmother's dog?
you know come to think of it is does seem more like the apocolypse around here the signs have all been there.
Jack Thompson DOESN'T jump on the Mass Effect band wagon.
People who usually hate each other have come together to support Net Neutrality
The RIAA is actually on our side.
Anyone else think it may be a good idea to be on the lookout for four horsemen.
If paris hilton does something classy, then it's the last sign of the apocalypse
Anyway, it's pretty sad that the government can regulate minors' access to pornography, but not to brutality. I didn't know the 1st Amendment was a vehicle for enforcing Puritanical attitudes.