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.
Goth_SkunkBut, to be completely fair, that fact never dawned on me until 15 minutes ago.06/30/2015 - 3:43pm
Goth_SkunkAbsolutely. He doesn't consent, and is powerless to stop it because his attacker isn't corporeal. The fact that he's enjoying himself does not change the fact that it's technically rape.06/30/2015 - 3:42pm
Andrew EisenAlways came off as a dream to me.06/30/2015 - 3:40pm
Andrew EisenThat scene really reads to you like Stantz was being raped?06/30/2015 - 3:39pm
Andrew EisenAlso a pic of Wiig wearing the pack in street clothes!06/30/2015 - 3:37pm
Goth_SkunkBecause at the end of the day, after you dig through all the comedic undertones, it's rape. And that tends to send feminists into a tizzy.06/30/2015 - 3:37pm
Andrew EisenMcCarthy in costume! Yay! https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/melissa-mccarthy-rocks-iconic-ghostbusters-172200157.html06/30/2015 - 3:37pm
Andrew EisenIn my head I'm swapping out Aykroyd with McCarthy and I'm not feeling outraged at all.06/30/2015 - 3:34pm
Andrew EisenOkay. Why?06/30/2015 - 3:30pm
Goth_SkunkI predict there would be outrage from feminists.06/30/2015 - 3:29pm
Andrew EisenThen I imagine the reaction would be what I imagined it would be a few minutes ago.06/30/2015 - 3:28pm
Goth_SkunkFor the sake of argument, assume the tone, context, and content mirror the same scene from the 1984 film, just with a gender role reversal. For context, here's the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43wE6j_0Bc806/30/2015 - 3:26pm
Andrew EisenOf course, it all depends on the scene itself, the preceding scenes and the subsequent scenes.06/30/2015 - 3:23pm
Andrew EisenI imagine the reaction ("well, that's an odd scene that maybe feels a bit out of place") would be the same along with a heavier helping of "Oh, come on! Do we REALLY need to repeat scenes from the original film? Do something new!"06/30/2015 - 3:23pm
Goth_SkunkI propose: If, out of respect to the original film, something similar happens in the all-female version (male ghost), would the reaction be the same as it was in 1984?06/30/2015 - 3:19pm
Goth_SkunkI just had a thought: Fans of the original Ghostbusters film should recall a short scene in the film where it is heavily implied that Ray Stantz has sexual intercourse with a female ghost during a montage. In fact, it's technically rape.06/30/2015 - 3:18pm
Andrew EisenYou're assumption would be correct. The costumes are indeed for the film in production and not the one that the Sony emails showed was being considered and we have since heard nothing about.06/30/2015 - 3:16pm
Goth_SkunkOn the basis on chronology, I assume the aforementioned costumes and prop designs are for the female-led team.06/30/2015 - 3:14pm
Goth_SkunkJust asking out of curiosity, because while the all-female ghostbusters film will be out within a year, there is actually a male one being considered, too: http://ow.ly/P0AR706/30/2015 - 3:13pm
Andrew Eisen(There's only one Ghostbusters movie in production right now.)06/30/2015 - 3:07pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician