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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameI dont disagree on the jerks sentiment Andrew, so long as all agree that both side had there fair share of jerks got inolved with this whole clusterfark.05/04/2015 - 8:10pm
Andrew EisenI speak from experience. I'm not a jerk face and I've never had a problem discussing things with a huge variety of people.05/04/2015 - 7:59pm
Andrew EisenGreat, so long as they're not jerk faces, they should have no problem.05/04/2015 - 7:58pm
Goth_SkunkOr if they have the unfortunate distinction of following certain undesirables on Twitter. i.e. Milo Yiannopolous, Roguestar, Mundane Matt, C.H. Sommers, Mark Kern, Adam Baldwin et al.05/04/2015 - 7:53pm
Andrew EisenThere's no need for anyone who's not a jerk face to admit to vile actions they didn't commit.05/04/2015 - 7:52pm
Goth_SkunkI disagree. I believe all the parties wanting discussion are on the GG side. The parties against GamerGate aren't interested in discussion, as evidenced by the propensity to simply block people on social media the moment they identify as pro-GG.05/04/2015 - 7:51pm
Andrew EisenShe used to allow comments on her videos. Blame the jerk faces that that's no longer the case.05/04/2015 - 7:49pm
Andrew EisenSarkeesian has given plenty of talks in venues where anyone is welcome to attend. It's not her fault that most of her audience supports her. That said, she HAS fielded questions from detractors.05/04/2015 - 7:49pm
Mattsworknameboth sides to start taking things off the table that are not relevant to the actuall issues they hold, so we can find out where these 2 groups really stand, not what a biased media labeled them ass05/04/2015 - 7:48pm
Mattsworknamechallenge her or disagree. Second ,I want both sides to admit to the vile actions there more fringe and extreme supports commited and admit it was wrong on both sides. I want both sides to argue what there core issues are and why they hold them, and i wan05/04/2015 - 7:47pm
MattsworknameTo clarify andrew, in all that ive seen, anita only talks or gives qas to audiance that share her views, never any opposing viewpoints. She does not allow any commensts on her videos and only ever did interviews with those who support her, not those who05/04/2015 - 7:42pm
Andrew EisenIf so, I'd have to agree with most that those are viewpoints that are simply not worth entertaining.05/04/2015 - 7:23pm
Andrew EisenAre you really looking for a discussion where one side is advocating hate, bullied self censorship and no discussions of women in video games?05/04/2015 - 7:22pm
Andrew EisenAnd for your three things you'd like to see discussed, Sarkeesain wants the hate to stop, doesn't want to bully the industry into self censorship and already talks about women in video games.05/04/2015 - 7:22pm
Andrew EisenDon't know about Yiannopoulos. I don't follow his work because I find it roundly terrible.05/04/2015 - 7:19pm
Andrew EisenGG and anti-GG aren't groups. You can't organize people like that. It doesn't work that way. Sarkeesian participates in discussions complete with Q/A all the damn time. It's why her videos take so damn long.05/04/2015 - 7:18pm
MattsworknameMaybe among themselves andrew, but I cant find any indicatoin that the gg or anti gg groups ever tried to honestly debate each other, name one time anita debated someone or milo debaated someone from the other side, I cant find any05/04/2015 - 7:15pm
Andrew EisenNot at all true. It's just the jerk faces that aren't willing to be decent, civil human beings. Everyone else is fine and more than willing to talk about stuff.05/04/2015 - 7:04pm
MattsworknameTrue andrew, but to my best effort research, i can find no indication of either side being willing to do that. As far as i can tell, neither side is willing to discusss or debate the other. They just keep attacking each other.05/04/2015 - 6:59pm
Andrew EisenSo... yep, hate should stop. Yep, no one should be bullied into self censorship. And yep, the portrayal of women in video games should be discussed. Not sure who (other than jerk faces) you're going to get to argue against any of that.05/04/2015 - 6:34pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician