Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

May 20, 2009 -

California's petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in regard to its 2005 video game law is now available online.

The petition asks the Court to consider two key questions:

1. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?

2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

Grab your copy here (PDF).


Comments

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

You know I haven't heard talk of game legislation in a long while, I thought we were finished. It looks like we aren't though but only because my state is bringing it to the Supreme Court.

If CA wins we can expect a victory dance by JT, and new legislation popping up all over.

If they lose it would be great but I can't help but think some states will still try and just claim "we have more conclusive evidence than CA did at the time" although a negative Supreme Court ruling will likely discourage states from trying and definitely be precedent circuit courts would have to consider.

If they refuse to hear the case, the unconstitutional ruling stands on the CA law and we're back to waiting which next state will pop up with a similar bill, if any.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

some of the commenters say enough is enough with the video game law

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/022454.html

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: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

A few interesting things in reading the petition (I suppose that technically I'm reading the laws behind it).  I'll be curious if they actually address these.

1)  the State did not demonstrate that parental controls available on some new versions of gaming consoles would be less effective.

2)  The court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s finding that, even assuming a direct causal connection had been shown, the Act was not the least restrictive means of preventing the identified harm to minors.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems their petition completely ignores this part of the lower court findings, and the above finding is likewise unmentioned in the actual petition, but rather is mentioned only in the case history.  If memory serves, the availability of parental controls for TVs was a significant step in why most TV is unregulated by the gov't, but now they're arguing, or at least implying, that parental controls are ineffective or irrelevant to the issue of regulation.  That seems like a rather slippery slope.

3)   Like other forms of unprotected speech recognized to date

... When have video games actually been recognized, in a court of law, as unprotected speech?

4)   No essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth  

That's a remarkably narrow viewpoint...  I'll concede that games such as Postal (which is one of the ones cited in their research, I believe) have no real societal benefit, but that doesn't mean that none of them do.  In fact, there are several games (offhand, Portal seems to be the best example, even though it's non-violent and therefore not attacked here) which provide remarkable insights into otherwise extraordinarily dense concepts.  In fact, this makes me wonder just how many games this act would really restrict... How many games are there which can be classified under this definition?  Other than the aforementioned Postal (which I haven't actually played, so feel free to correct me) I can't think of any this argument really applies to.

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

 

Edit:  Sorry for the wall of text.

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

 You make some really good points, and in regards to the last one, I have a question.

4)   No essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth

How would one go about proving the social value of some arbitrary videogame/movie/painting/sculpture/etc.? I don't even see how this is a valid test for determining if something should be restricted or banned. It seems far too subjective. How is a painting of a blue square an essential part of exposition of ideas? It just sounds completely nonsensical.

I'm sure someone would be able to come up with some social value for the blue square painting, just the same as someone being able to come up with some social value for Postal.

Hell, I guess we should ban all the action movies, that's basically what a lot of videogames are.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Exactly, this appeal attempts to brand all games that recieve the M rating as another Postal or GTA or Manhunt, it's like saying that every Mature rated movie is Texas Chainsaw Massacre, there are movies out there that contain extremely deep social commentary, and are rated Mature, same for Video Games, to lump them all into the same basket and ask for them to be judged by the least 'socially acceptable' games is completely out of order.

It's kind of like saying that every politician is Spitzer, they all hire prostitutes, it's obvious, after all, if one politician does it, they all must...

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

The "questions presented" demonstrates a basically dishonest presentation of the case, as does the press release. They focus on whether the First Amendment gives a right to sell a game to a minor against the state government's wishes, and ignore the fact that their law would have just as surely prohibited minors from buying a game against their wishes. The First Amendment contains no age limitation.

As for harm, if they were to win on question #2, it should send chills down the spines of those who cherish other freedoms, such as freedom of religion and freedom of thought. History is replete with teachings that "harm" children more than a video game ever did -- speech teaching a child to become a racist, speech teaching a child to adopt harmful religious-based beliefs such as refusing medical treatment, speech encouraging a child to join the armed forces, speech teaching children that abstinence is enough and any other birth control is bad, speech that teaches a child to vote Republican when they grow up, and (just in case you didn't know where I was going), speech that half the nation may consider harmful to a child and the other half considers essential for the child's wellbeing.

CopyOwner

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

I can already answer the dumbasses' questions for them:

1) Yes.

2) Yes. You are directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment, therefore you need absolute proof that the speech in question is "harmful". Never been done and never will be.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

It's not exactly rocket science. It's very very basic constitutional law, that anyone, let alone politicians, should be familiar with. Do they really think 'because we want to' is enough reason to break the most fundamental building blocks of our legal system?

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

I don't know, wasn't that that Supreme Court's reasoning when they ruled that "In God We Trust" wasn't a religious phrase, et al.?

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Not at all. While completely misguided, it was based on fear of communism. And that somehow, In God We Trust would act as a deterrent against it, and ward off all the evil mystical communism cooties. Completely bogus, but not quite "because we want to". Moreover, there's arguments that 'God' is ambiguous, so it's not endorcing any specific religion. And then if you want to go a step further, they can just be saying 'God' as a general term. "Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise," was the ruling when that was challenged as unconstitutional.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

"Moreover, there's arguments that 'God' is ambiguous, so it's not endorcing any specific religion."

As far as I know the only god that got dubbed 'God' was the Judeau-Christian god. Every other god had a name attached (Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris etc.)

But even without that it still embraces theism.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Lee and Arnie obviously think so.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Beat me to it. Thanks though.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Read California's Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court

Well, this is going to be interesting.

-----------------------------



"The sun will always rise tomorrow. We can only live for today, and hope more days will come." -Unknown

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician