ECA's Amicus Brief Filed

September 18, 2010 -

The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), the nonprofit organization which represents gamers in the U.S. and Canada, has filed a 44-page amicus brief in support of the video game industry (and consumers... and sanity) with the U.S. Supreme Court this evening. You can grab the PDF here.

Co-signing onto the ECA brief are such notable organizations as: the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Public Knowledge and Students for Free Culture.

While there is a lot to sift through in this massive document, the most interesting point made on behalf of consumers is the following (taken from the arguments section):

"Video game consumers have First Amendment rights that must be protected from the state’s interference. The First Amendment protects a person’s right to choose what information or entertainment he or she wishes to receive, just as it protects a speaker’s or author’s right to speak or publish what he or she wishes to say. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). Without this corollary right, the marketplace of ideas would not work, as speakers and publishers would not have audiences with whom to transact."

Oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association are scheduled for November 2.

(I would like to personally thank every gamer that took the time to sign the ECA's petition. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the game industry, it will be due in no small part to all of you.)

 

Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA.

Posted in

Comments

Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed

Does anyone know a final count on how many signed the petition?

Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed

As far as I know, the only thing the ECA has said in that regard is "tens of thousands."

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: ECA's Amicus Brief Filed

I don't think it matters much whether tens of thousands or tens of millions. The Court is unlikely to ascribe any weight at all to a list of petition signatures no matter the number. It's not a court of public opinion. It's a court of law to which its members -- thankfully -- aren't elected by popular vote. They're appointed for lifetime tenure. One of the intents of lifetime tenure -- at least in theory -- is to allow the Court to rise above the political fray and render decisions regardless of how popular or unpopular those decisions may be. Indeed, many of the Court's more profound decisions have been made in the face of overwhelming public opposition to those decisions (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education).    

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightGot that same recommendation on Twitter. So I guess that is a good sign.09/15/2014 - 8:39pm
prh99Portlandia, though I don't watch a lot of sitcoms. Heard it was good though.09/15/2014 - 8:02pm
E. Zachary KnightSitcom recommendations for someone who like Parks and Rec but hates The Office: Go.09/15/2014 - 6:08pm
NeenekoEven if they do change their policy, they can only do it moving forward and I could see the mod/pack community simply branching.09/15/2014 - 12:50pm
Michael ChandraAs for take the money and run, the guy must have a networth of 8~9 digits already.09/15/2014 - 10:33am
Michael ChandraMe, I'm more betting on some form of mod API where servers must run donations/payments through them and they take a cut.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraEspecially since they want it for promoting their phones. Killing user interest is the dumbest move to make.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraGiven how the EULA actively allows for LPs, I'm not sure Microsoft is ready for the backlash of disallowing that.09/15/2014 - 10:31am
Matthew Wilsonthey wont do that, the backlash would be too big.09/15/2014 - 10:25am
ConsterSleaker: how is that a flipside? Sounds to me like that's basically what Notch himself said, except rudely.09/15/2014 - 10:18am
MaskedPixelanteOn the plus side, no more lazy Minecraft LPs, since iirc Microsoft has a strict "no monetization period" policy when it comes to their stuff.09/15/2014 - 10:13am
james_fudgeBut it continues to sell on every platform it is on, so there's that09/15/2014 - 10:09am
james_fudgeOh, well that's another matter :)09/15/2014 - 10:08am
E. Zachary KnightNothing against Notch here. I think it is great that he made something so cool. I just can't understand how it is worth $2.5 bil09/15/2014 - 9:59am
InfophileWhat a world we live in: Becoming a billionaire was the easy way out for Notch.09/15/2014 - 9:42am
james_fudgelots of hate for Notch here. I don't get it. Sorry he made a game everyone loved. What a monster he is!09/15/2014 - 9:37am
SleakerOn the flipside, Notch has been a horrible CEO for Mojang, and the company has grown on sheer inertia, DESPITE being mishandled over and over.09/15/2014 - 9:33am
SleakerI can understand Notch's statements he made to Kotaku about growing bigger than he intended, and getting hate for EULA changes he didn't enact.09/15/2014 - 9:32am
MaskedPixelantehttp://pastebin.com/n1qTeikM Notch's statement about the MS acquisition. He wanted out for a long time and this was the easiest way.09/15/2014 - 9:08am
ConsterEh, I can't blame him.09/15/2014 - 9:01am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician