Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

August 23, 2010 -

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 10 AM ET is when oral arguments will be made in front of the Supreme Court of the United States for case number 08-1448, better known as Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

The one-hour long session is the first on that day’s calendar (PDF) and will see the Court answer a pair of questions related to a California state law originally authored by State Senator Leland Yee, which sought to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.

The two questions posed to the Court are:

1.  Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?

2.  If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

The Court, unfortunately for all of us waiting, has no set time table under which it must decide on the case and/or issue a decision, other than it must be decided before the Court’s summer recess begins, which is usually at the end of June.

More on arguments from the Supreme Court website:

During an argument week, the Justices meet in a private conference, closed even to staff, to discuss the cases and to take a preliminary vote on each case. If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a case decision, he decides who will write the opinion. He may decide to write it himself or he may assign that duty to any other Justice in the majority. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the Justice in the majority who has the most seniority assumes the assignment duty.

Also, if you were wondering where new Chief Justice Elena Kagan would be sitting, wonder no more as SCOTUS has also released the Court’s new seating chart. Kagan will be sitting to the left of Justice Samuel Alito, all the way on the right side of the Court as viewing it from the audience.

Comments

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

Oops, read that wrong. Preliminary vote is after arguments. It seemed dubious they would vote even before that time.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

I didn't get that from the post...I think it's saying a vote will be held during arguments week which is Nov. 2.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

So is the preliminary vote before or after oral arguments are completed?

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

My understanding, which could be flawed, is that it is after.  Anyone know different?

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unit... this meeting is directly after oral arguments. There probably isn't anything preventing them from conferring amongst each other prior to oral argument, but that's not likely what the SCOTUS website was talking about.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

I have 2 games preordered from the UK if this censorship bill passes. With games not being free speech anymore the states can ban all blood, gore, dismemberment, sexual content, etc. Leaving us with what Germany and Australia have for their games.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

1. It's not a question of passing a bill.  The bill has already been passed; it's a law and it's being challenged in the Supreme Court.

2. It doesn't ban any content; it bans violent games being sold to minors.  While I think that's a bad thing and fundamentally oppose it, it's not what you're describing at all.

3. Suggesting the UK puts more stock in free speech than the US is a bit of an oversimplification.  While they certainly allow, for example, more adult content in their broadcast TV, they don't have a First Amendment like we do.  There are much stronger restrictions on political speech and the like.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

Games are a form of speech and thus should be protected. The people who are so adamant about banning them just refuse to acknowledge that.They're just going through what video game,s movie,s music, hell, al lforms of media have before.

Re: Schwarzenegger vs EMA Gets SCOTUS Oral Argument Date

"[Under strick scrutiny] is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?"

As I understand it, the state has to do more than just show that there's something out there psychologically harming children that the state needs to protect them from, it also has to show that the law will protect them from said harm (it won't) and show that the law is more effective than the measures already out there (it isn't).

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
DocMelonheadWhich is why I find him/her to be annoying as hell.05/30/2015 - 12:34pm
ConsterIP raises valid points sometimes, but they're drowned out by his "REPENT, SINNER!" attitude.05/30/2015 - 12:32pm
DocMelonheadOne of them were friend of those who got harassed by GameGate; another feel that GamerGate made it worst for people like her.05/30/2015 - 12:19pm
DocMelonheadI met several people at Boing Boing who have their own personal grude against them;05/30/2015 - 12:16pm
DocMelonheadSo, the question is this Iron Patriot, WHAT'S YOUR BEEF AGAINST GAMERGATE?05/30/2015 - 12:15pm
DocMelonheadThat's why many Anti-GG here see you as an ASSHOLE.05/30/2015 - 12:09pm
DocMelonheadSo in other words, You failed to keep a decent disscusion and proceed to talk down on those who argues against you.05/30/2015 - 12:08pm
DocMelonheadBut that's the thing, all you said that GamerGate is NOTHING BUT HARASSMENT AND VICTIM BLAMING05/30/2015 - 12:07pm
DocMelonheadAlso, IP you're no better than GamerGate; and yes, it ENABLE death threats, but not encourage them.05/30/2015 - 12:06pm
DocMelonheadSo who agree that the report buttion should be put back up.05/30/2015 - 12:05pm
DocMelonheadalso We all agree that you're annoy as fuck IP05/30/2015 - 12:05pm
DocMelonheadGoth Skunk never gone victim blaming05/30/2015 - 12:04pm
DocMelonheadHarassment=Bullying.05/30/2015 - 12:01pm
IronPatriotBecause gamergate death threats, rape threats and doxxing are SO SIMILAR to pointing out the facts and logical failings of gamergate.05/30/2015 - 11:29am
IronPatriotLet's see. Gamergate sends death and rape threats against innocent women, and goth skunk blames the victims for getting harrassed. I point out gamergate harrassment and victim-blaming, and the pro-gamergaters squeal that they have been harassed? LOL!05/30/2015 - 11:28am
WonderkarpAs a life long X-Men fan, I cant tell you how much this annoys me http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/30/between-the-panels-marvels-merchandising-problem05/30/2015 - 10:23am
MechaCrashOh, no, I totally agree with you that Iron is being a jerk and needs to stop, but isn't the usual GG suggesstion for harassment "just ignore it, grow a thicker skin, don't report it"?05/30/2015 - 9:22am
Conster...and even the more stubborn and annoying ones are downright pleasant when compared to IronPatriot's behavior. His behavior is harassment regardless of whether it's aimed at pro-GG or anti-GG people, and it has to stop.05/30/2015 - 8:55am
ConsterMechaCrash: is this about Goth_Skunk's complaint against IronPatriot? Because while I'm anti-GG and strongly disagree with a lot of the stuff the pro-GG people on here say, most of them disapprove of harassment, even if it's 'in the name of GamerGate'...05/30/2015 - 8:55am
MechaCrashMan, some people are just...so immune to noticing irony, you know? The mind boggles.05/30/2015 - 8:35am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician