Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger Case

August 19, 2010 -

As each side in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case attempts to lure state attorney generals to sign on to their respective amicus briefs, Common Sense Media Chief James Steyer is turning up the pressure on one particular person.

The LA Times features an excerpt from a letter by Steyer to Utah Attorney General, and a one-time target of a certain disbarred attorney, Mark Shurtleff (pictured). While Shurtleff might seem like a natural to sign on to a brief in favor of the California law—he argued for a ban of the game 25 to Life in 2005—he has also demonstrated considerable backbone, once challenging a proposed Utah law introduced by a now disbarred attorney as unconstitutional.

Shurtleff also appears to be leaning toward signing on to the videogame industry side in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA fight, as evidenced by Steyer’s strong words:

We've been told that you and the state of Utah are thinking about supporting the video game industry by signing on to an amicus brief opposing the law passed in California. We find this perplexing given that the mission on your Web site states that your office is especially focused 'on protecting children' and your bio on Twitter states 'I am focused on protecting children, families and the citizens of Utah.' It is hard to believe that someone making these statements would support the video game industry's anti-child safety position.

Steyer has previously described the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case in front of the Supreme Court as being “all about sanity, not censorship.”


Comments

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

"The LA Times features an excerpt from a letter by Steyer to Utah Attorney General, and a one-time target of a certain disbarred attorney, Mark Shurtleff (pictured)."

That sentence is awkward and makes it sound like Mark Shurtleff is the one who's the disbarred attorney.  Rather than trying to be cute by referring to Jack Thompson as "a certain disbarred attorney," you should just refer to him as "Jack Thompson."

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

Are they saying that you can't support the game industry and still be pro-family? (Although crazier groups such as the eagle forum and the parent trash cult would probably say yes.)

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

Doubt those Eagle Forum people will stand for this.

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

"...anti-child safety position"

Anti-games folk seem to have little more than lies and logical fallacies.  This particular one is among the most annoying: the statement that being opposed to game censorship means you are against "the children".   

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

Its censorship it limits what game creaters can do with content.This gives all M games and most T games the same restriction as the dreaded AO rating. How can this NOT be censorship?

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

Looks like a couple typos -- should be Common Sense Media, not Commons Sense, and the following is hard to parse:

"While Shurtleff might seem like a natural to sign on to a brief in favor of overturning the California law—he argued for a ban of the game 25 to Life in 2005"

Should that be "might NOT seem like a natural"?  Because wanting to ban 25 to Life doesn't make him seem like a natural for wanting to overturn the California law at all.

Good article, though; Schwarzenegger v. EMA is the most important GP issue of the year and your updates are appreciated.

Re: Utah Might be on Game Industry Side in Schwarzenegger ...

Steyer has previously described the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case in front of the Supreme Court as being “all about sanity, not censorship.”

It is about censorship!

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

 
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