ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

July 14, 2010 -

While the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has until September 10 to file its own brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to Schwarzenegger v. EMA, the organization issued a statement in reaction to a brief filed by the state of California on Monday.

Trumpeting the ESA's dominating string of victories in such cases, and perhaps attempting to take some of the wind out of the sails of California State Senator Leland Yee, ESA President and CEO Michael Gallagher stated:

Computer and video games are First Amendment protected speech. There is an unbroken chain of more than a dozen previous court rulings agreeing. Courts across the country recognize that computer and video games, like other protected expression such as movies, books, and music, have an artistic viewpoint, and use sounds and images to create an experience and immerse the player in art. That is why other courts have unanimously affirmed that video games are entitled to the same constitutional protection as movies, music, books, and other forms of art.

California’s law is no different than others before it. It is clearly unconstitutional under First Amendment principles. We look forward to presenting our arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States and vigorously defending the works of our industry’s creators, storytellers and innovators.


Comments

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

I hope for this law to fail just to see Mr. Yee and the governator cry like babies.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

How about because it's a bad law?

Seriously, guys, let's be adults here.

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

"California’s law is no different than others before it. It is clearly unconstitutional under First Amendment principles."

Forget constitutionality.  Hell, forget the niggling detail that there's no harm to protect children from in the first place.

This law, flat-out, would not work.  It would do nothing to prevent children from playing violent games (even if they did cause harm).  I think that's enough to shoot it down right there.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Hasn't exactly stopped the drinking age or the drug war.

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Yes, the CA law certainly isn't alone in that regard.  Plenty laws that any 6-year-old could tell you wouldn't work make it on the books.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

It's been my experience that most 6 year olds have a lot more sense than many adults.

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

I just realized there has been no mention of the ESRB ratings (a private organization) being given the force of law.  I take it then that the law is looking for alternative methods of determining which games are "offensive"?

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Yeah. The law is not based on the ESRB ratings or anything like that. It is based on a definition of "excessive violence" that is put in place by whom ever is the elected official in the city in which the complaint is raised or the state Attorney General.

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

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

I call california's Brief The equiviant of Jack thompson's bizzare Commentary on his Lawsuits

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: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

I don't think it's quite on the same level as JT's bizarre rantings.  It's dead wrong, of course, but it's not completely insane.

I think that's the main difference between Thompson and Yee.  Yee's basically a good guy, he's polite and he engages the video game community with respect.  I disagree, fundamentally, with his stance, and I believe, strongly, that he's wasting the time and money of a state that's already in dire financial straits in order to attempt to curtail freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.  But at least he's not a raving lunatic.

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

I think that Yee is a douche and he just is educated enough to deguise it behind a polite attitude, but when everything this fail (and it will) we will see his real face, not very far of what Jack Thompson was some years ago.

No one can claim that an entire industry and its users are a danger for society and being 100% polite.

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

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Now see, calling someone childish names because he disagrees with you IS the sort of thing JT's famous for.  This is the exact point I'm making -- we can disagree with people like Yee without stooping to JT's level, and Yee can show the same respect to us.

I don't agree with the guy, I think his position is utterly wrongheaded and misguided, and I think his crusade is a spectacularly bad idea.  But he doesn't go around calling people douches.

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Call you names? He threatens to sue every other person.

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

Er, you know he's a state senator, not a practicing lawyer, right?

Re: ESA Responds to Schwarzenegger v. EMA California Brief

You mean how he was extremely sure he would come out victorious but all he was doing was taking someone's pencil and going "Haha, now you can't write!!!"

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician