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/