Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA (Update 3)

April 26, 2010 -

Via Orders of the Court (PDF) just issued at 10:00 AM ET this morning, The Supreme Court of the United States has granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to the California side of Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger.

This means that the nation’s top court will indeed review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of California in February of 2009, which struck down a California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell violent videogames to consumers under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the law would be subject to fines of up to $1,000.

While it granted Schwarzenegger and California writ of certiorari, SCOTUS did choose not to accept an amicus brief filed by California State Senator Leland Yee (D), original author of the videogame bill. The brief attempted to detail “the compelling evidence considered by the Legislature and the Governor in approving the law,” wrote Yee.

Bo Anderson, President and CEO of the EMA, offered:

EMA obviously would have preferred that the Supreme Court decline review of the lower court decision finding the California video game restriction law to be unconstitutional. We are confident, however, that when the Supreme Court conducts its review, it will conclude that the lower court correctly analyzed the law and reached the appropriate conclusion.


SCOTUS Blog writes that SCOTUS could “have opted to send the California case back to the Ninth Circuit Court to weigh the impact of the Stevens decision.”

Instead SCOTUS itself will review the case in its next term, which begins on October 4.

Update: Michael Gallagher, Entertainment Software Association (ESA) President, offered the following comments on today’s news:

Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional. Research shows that the public agrees, video games should be provided the same protections as books, movies and music.


As the Court recognized last week in the US v. Stevens case, the First Amendment protects all speech other than just a few ‘historic and traditional categories’ that are ‘well-defined and narrowly limited.’ We are hopeful that the Court will reject California’s invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment.

Update 2: Senator Leland Yee was obviously thrilled with the decision of SCOTUS, saying, “I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has accepted our case to help protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the high court will determine our law to be Constitutional, but regardless, states are now certain to receive direction on how to proceed with this important issue."

He added:

If the Supreme Court thought that the facts and circumstances surrounding the Stevens case were similar, they would have thrown out our law as well. Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech.

Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) VP of Government Affairs Jennifer Mercurio stated:

The Roberts court seems to be tackling free speech head on this year. We  are encouraged by the Court's decision last week in US v Stevens, which holds, among other things, that First Amendment protection is not reserved for “serious” speech and we look forward to the oral arguments in the fall.

Update 3: The Media Coalition, the trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of mainstream media, including video games, spoke out today about the Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of California's violent video games law. Executive Director David Horowitz believes that the law will be struck down for the third time.

“In last week’s ruling in U.S. v. Stevens, the Court reiterated that speech is protected by the First Amendment save for a small number of narrow historic exceptions,” Horowitz said.  “The speech at issue in this case does not fall within one of those narrow exceptions and we hope that the Court will decline to create a new category of unprotected speech.”

In addition to filing an amicus brief in the California case, the Media Coalition in 2004 brought a successful challenge to an Ohio law that banned speech with violent themes in all media (Bookfriends v. Taft), and filed amicus briefs or assisted with challenges to similar laws in Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Louisiana, Michigan, and Oklahoma. 
 

Disclosure: Gamepolitics is a publication of the ECA.


Comments

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Interesting fact: for stats kept until 2002, Thomas has sided with protecting free speech the second-most of any Justices (behind Kennedy, tied with Souter), while Breyer has sided with protecting free speech the least.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Making digdug's estimations somewhat incorrect, then.

I think the vote will be 6-2 or 5-3(if Obama can't get a replacement for Stevens on the bench before the case is heard or Obama's choice has to recuse him/herself; if this happens and the vote is 4-4, the lower court ruling stands) or 8-1/7-2/6-3 for the game industry.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Thinking about this a little further, I'm now wondering if SCOTUS would have denied cert if it came from any other Circuit other than the Ninth Circuit.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Keep in mind that EMA v california is the same as US v stevens

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Kotaku brings us a very condescending rant about why the industry should do whatever he wants. The reason? For the children, of course:

"This is not about Leland Yee trying to destroy the industry," Yee said in an interview with Kotaku. "This is not about Leland Yee trying to prevent any of you game [developers] from developing any more atrocious kinds of games. This is a free society. If you have the imagination to do something even more horrible with the technology, then god bless you. That's part of our freedom of expression here in America, but you just have to figure out when it's appropriate and when it's not appropriate. For me, as a child psychologist you ought not be doing it for kids."

God, I want to send him on a rocket to a black hole. There are not enough insults on this planet to describe how arrogant is he.

http://kotaku.com/5524961/violent-video-game-supreme-court-raises-stakes-in-america-sides-sound-off

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Leland Yee should be congratulated and condemned for showing himself as being no different than a pedophile, then, along being a delusional, blithering idiot.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

lol...I like how anyone who is saying that they are thinking of the children, is perhaps more likely a pedophile all because they are "thinking of the children"...

However to say it in their faces...well...you need to be brave enough in order to survive all the shit they are going to throw at you for saying something like that.

 

TBoneTony

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

you see, Leland "Pee Pee" yee was never Wrapped around too tight to begin with, I can see him throwing a (pardon my language) S*** Fit like JT did before over this Video game law, So expect a possible senario That He may throw one in october(If Scotus Bitchslaps his law up and down capitol hill)

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

That would be funny as hell. He looks like he is on a serious Mesiah Complex.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

It's very likely CA's Video game law, Will be thrown into the Toilet by the Supreme court over the Violence = varible obscenity issue

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Kennedy is critical. He has sided with the majority in something like 80% of cases brought for the past few years. People are calling this the Kennedy Court due to his influence. I have a feeling that as he goes, so goes the decision. Fortunately, he has been very First Amendment-friendly in the past.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Against or leaning against the law: Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer

For or leaning for the law: Thomas, Scalia, Alito

Unknown: Roberts, Sotomayor.

I say unknown for Roberts because of how strongly he supported free speech in the Animal Cruelty decision. Sotomayor just hasn't been on the court long enough to know how broadly she views the 1st Amendment. 

Essentially you'll have the liberals voting for a broad interpretation of the 1st amendment, while the conservatives will be more likely to just say its up to each state to decide (states rights). Thats why its different from the Animal Cruelty case, because that was a federal law.

I think whoever Obama nominates to replace Stevens will very likely vote with the liberals. 

Im going to be optimistic and, at this point, before hearing anything about the case, the questions justices are asking etc..., that the law is ruled unconstitutional by 5 to 4. All 4 liberals vote against the law and Kennedy the swing vote sides with them to create majority. All 4 conservative vote to defer to California.

Its going to be very close imo  Could go either way.
 

 

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Correction: Breyer retired last year and Sotomayor replaced him.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Sotomayor replaced Souter not Breyer.

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

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

By October, Justice Stevens will be off the bench, and we will have a wild card. Scalia previously said he would apply the Ginsberg standard rather than strict scrutiny, and find the law constitutional. So we have him, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas likely coming down on the side of the law. Breyer has been inconsistent on the First Amendment too. So, this is a real question mark for me.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech."

Doesn't your stupid law require violent games to carry a label? Even if it were deemed constitutional to bar the sale of such games to minors, the fact that you can't publish these games at all without first affixing a huge label onto them means the law not only prohibits speech, but compels it.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

I wonder if Wooley v. Maynard would apply to those labels.

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

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

A clip on comic book censorship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8oCrc-siHU

Can this happen to video games?

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Love how yee is already declaring victory.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Commenting on the 2nd update. Not only is Leland Yee a blithering idiot, he's also highly delusional.

1) the facts and circumstances between the piece of shit Yee authored and U.S. v. Stevens are indeed similiar: both involve First Amendment free speech issues, dumbass.

2) The piece of shit was never "narrowly tailored". In fact, it is far removed from that. The parental controls on the game systems themselves are the least restrictive means, the law would never actually stop minors from even getting the games in question, and the so-called research never proved any "harm" whatsoever.

And that's not including the cold hard fact that Yee voted against a bill banning toxic materials in children's toys, and the cold hard fact that the bill probably never should have been law in the first place considering that Yee apparently was involved in an illegal substitution of assemblymen to get his pride and joy out of committee: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/17325.html

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Somewhere in Miami, JT is on his knees fervently praying to his god that this passes.

Oh, if it does, does this mean we'll all have to go crying to him now about how we all should have listened to him and how he was right like he predicted we would? [/sarcasm]

I'm on the fence about this.  While I want to share the optimism of those who think SCOTUS will uphold the 9th Circuit ruling and that it will put an end to this matter one and for all (or at least further attempts at anti-gaming legislation of this kind), I myself don't put much faith in them.  To me, they could easily rule one way or another.  Just considering the average age of the justices, I don't think many of them would regard video games the way we do.  They're of a generation that would still see it as foreign.  And as such, may not deem it as speech worth protecting.  Sorry, but when things like this come up, I always have to assume the worst in these cases.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

The justices age has nothing to do with it. They make decisions every day on things they don't fully understand from a technical basis, for instance, highly complex genetic or computer decisions in patent cases.  They make their decisions based on the rules of law, and in this case, those rules are very clear. 

-- Dan Rosenthal

-- Dan Rosenthal

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

If video games are not seen as free speech then owning, selling, providing, making a violent video game would be a crime and you would be fined and jailed.

 

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Which would put even MORE undue stress on our already screwed up legal system

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

So, what happens if the SCOTUS determines that videogames are NOT speech? 

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

Then we are screwed.

If violent games are not protected by the First Amendment, then there will be a government induced Video Game Code Authority (similar to the Comics Code Authority) in which all games that are not acceptable for children will be chilled out of existence.

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

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

The comic book industry never really recovered either, meaning if that did occur the industry would indeed be screwed.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

But honestly what are the chances of that happening?

What do video games do that would make them not free speech?

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

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA ...

I'd like to think, due to the track record of these laws in court, the acceptence of this case is essentially so the Supreme Court can lay down the law (which as mentioned, due to the track record, will most likely be that these laws are unconstitutional) and tell everyone who constantly beats this dead horse to sit down and shut the f up. However even if gamers do win this, i know they won't stop.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Here is what I think. I think that SCotUS will uphold the 9th Circuit ruling. I have no doubt about that. This will be a good thing and it will prevent states from creating similar laws.

But this won't be the end of it.

Oklahoma passed one of these laws in 2006 and it was ruled unconstitutional in 2007. But that has not stopped those supporters of that law. Right after the ruling a senator introduced a bill that would have forced retailers to provide false information to consumers about the harmful effects of violence in games. Luckily, that bill never made it to a vote and was not re-introduced the following session.

Then we have my attempts to get game developer tax incentives introduced to the state. It was good at the beginning, but supporters of the 2006 law injected it with restrictions that would exclude games rated M and AO from getting the incentives. This is not reflective of the incentives offered to Film and television. This bill has been stalled in committee due to our recent budget shortfall.

I do not doubt that there will be future attempts to chill speech in the form of violent games. They will just do so indirectly.

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

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Just goes to show that most of those who would go to any length to get what they want are usually those who deserve it the least.

However, the only problem I foresee is that no matter the ruling, certain people are NOT going to let this issue res,t and at least certain people will likely begin using their own resources to peitition SCOTUS to overturn the decision.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Good, it will be nice to finally have some kind of decision from the highest authority on the matter.

Like most people, I don't think it will stand up to constitutional scrutiny, but as I said from the start, I hoped they would hear it, since once the decision has been made, it will make it harder for state government to try to abuse the constitution by the back door.

Either the law needs to encompass ALL media, or it will not stand in my opinion, since it is discriminating against a specific form of speech, and since the application was based on a falsehood, that there is a 'proven' causal link between videogames and violence, I think California is going to end up looking rather silly at the end of all this.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

I hope you're right. If they strike down this law as unconstitutional it will be the end of this shit for good. I don't know if i'm so certain anymore though that they will though. We'll have to wait until Oct. for the oral arguements and then we'll have an idea.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

I'm pretty sure that the sheer number of anti-videogame bills is what promoted this choice to be honest, the Supreme Court probably decided that it was best to define once and for all where the law stands on the matter, otherwise they would just keep getting appeals over failed video-game laws until they did.

I think now it has reached this level, you will see a lot more interest from Freedom of Speech and Constitutional groups, not just the Game Industry, since this is, in truth, a matter that should concern all of them, if it gets passed, it opens the door to a much larger breadth of restriction and censorship, I suspect a large number of these groups may weigh in with support for the EMA in the near future.

My main concern is that, in the unlikely event that it gets passed, it will severely damage the American economy, like the Crysis crisis, who wants to keep their company in a country where their product, and only their product is villified? I suspect Canadian and Western European governments are praying for a rule in California's favour, because they stand to make a fortune from it. The companies will still sell goods in the US, but the profits won't be going back into the American economy, I am concerned that a large percentage of the Billions of profit made every year will start drifting abroad, where there are similar, but universal, laws, and where game-companies are not bracketted in with Porn organisations but are, instead, considered alongside other media producers.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Another main concern is that if found unconstitutional it could lead down a slippery slope towards other forms of Free speech like political or religious speech. Could minors be barred from speech that advocates anarchy, national socialsm or communism because it's patently offensive. What about Atheism, Satanism and paganism, many adults find that patently offensive and don't want kids knowing about it because it could shape their thoughts and feelings and give them ideas and information. What about parents not wanting their kids exposed to liberal viewpoints and vise versa for conservative viewpoints. What about depictions of people eating fattening foods, it might makes kids want to eat chocolate bars and chips and make them obese, that could be patently offensive to many people.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

I hope you're right. If they strike down this law as unconstitutional it will be the end of this shit for good.

Yup, and Roe v Wade stopped all anti-abortion laws.

Stupid is as stupid does. This is a "for the children" case in many people's eyes, and SCotUS calling it unconstitutional won't change a damn thing. Their version will always be constitutional, they figured out how to get around it.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

It will at least put an end to these cases even being heard, and part of me prays it will render the "video game" defense null and void, and, in cases, grounds for an attorney to be fired.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Like I said, I think it's bullshit that SCOTUS even agreed to hear California's bullshit appeal. But at the same time, SCOTUS has rejected all attempts to add "violence" to its definition of obscenity, so the video game industry is still the heavy favorite to win this challenge.

Though it is funny that they rejected Pee-Pee Yee's laughable amicus brief since he was too dumb to file it on time.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

There's nothing "bullshit" about SCOTUS agreeing to hear it. They often decide to hear these kinds of cases in order to apply the ruling nationwide, instead of just one circuit. 

-- Dan Rosenthal

-- Dan Rosenthal

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Considering that the industry has won just about every court challenge so far and especially going 4-0 in the appeals courts(twice in the 8th Circuit in St. Louis and Minnesota, the 7th Circuit in Indianapolis, and the 9th Circuit in California), then yes, I do consider it questionable for SCOTUS to grant cert in this case(although if California had won in the 9th Circuit, then yes, I would be all for SCOTUS reviewing the case).

Though, again, I feel like SCOTUS will rule in favor of the video game industry in this case. California never proved that they have a "compelling interest" and their bullshit law was never the least restrictive method.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

This could be a good thing (as it will end all the video game regulation attemps by politicans for good if found unconstitutional) or a very bad thing (the fact that they choose to hear this case after striking down another similar case as unconstitutional scares me a bit). I really hope it's the former. I really can't see them regulating fake simulated violence with Free Speech media but not real violence against real living beings as was the case in US vs. Stevens. I really don't know what to think.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

This won't end ALL regulation attempts by politicians for good, far from it. Just one manner of those attempts. Also, the fact that this happens after Stevens is a good thing.

-- Dan Rosenthal

-- Dan Rosenthal

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Two things comes to mind comes from the SCOUTS decision:

1.) There will be a final say in this matter for years to come.

2.) Considering that like 10 other courts ruled against state laws over video game based on the first admendmentt I don't see A big change coming for the highest cout on this matter.

And lets not forget that they also said that video tapping animal crulity was protected upder freedom of speech a few days ago so I think its safe to say that they're side with the gaming industry.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

That's not exactly what they said, what was said was that the law was too vauge for what it was going after.

 

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

This is the same court (minute Stevens) that just overturned 200 years of consistent precedence on the 2nd Amendment.... and decades of similar precedence on corporate speech... so take nothing for granted when it comes to rewriting constitutional law in the face of other decisions.

Agree or disagree with how they have ruled, I think they have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to break from other courts or even earlier incarnations of themselves when it suits the current political ideology.

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Yeah but the corporate speech one expanded what counts as free speech as did the aforementioned animal cruelty case. I highly doubt they'd be so inconsistent that they'd say hunting videos are free speech but video games aren't.

Oh and the second amendment doesn't come to play in this at all so it doesn't matter.

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

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: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Just curious, what was the Second Amendment decision you're referring to?

 

"That's not ironic. That's justice."

"That's not ironic. That's justice."

Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Will Review Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Num. 2 is the part that scares me a bit. You'd think if 10 other courts found these laws unconstitutional the Supreme Court wouldn't bother taking it up for consideration unless they have a different attitude for this law or see something in it. But they did take it up. On the other hand maybe they just want to end the whole violent video game regulation debate once and for all. I really hope free speech wins in the end.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIt's not bad so far, but I am honestly not sure what to make of it (or where it's going for that matter)07/28/2014 - 9:44pm
Matthew Wilsonis it any good?07/28/2014 - 9:36pm
Papa Midnight"Love Child" on HBO -- anyone else watching this?07/28/2014 - 9:27pm
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician