SCOTUS Blog notes the tone of today's arguments before the Supreme Court; In particular, the industry's notion that no amount of legislation is required - big or small. Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed industry's lawyer on the perception that common sense should prevail when it comes to social problems with children who play video games. He pushed back hard at the industry for the idea that "there simply is no problem that legislatures need to try to solve."
On the other side, California's Deputy Attorney General was pressed on the vague nature of its arguments. Justices wondered why the State could not clearly define violence without suppressing free speech. Considering that it wants to define violent video games as something similar to pornography, the state may end up failing to prove its case.
My take on their take: I'm not a lawyer, but the motivation for the industry is in part due to the positions of other industries that the government has tried to regulate over the years: movies, books, TV, and music - to name a few. Add to that the fact that the State's research on the correlation between playing violent video games and children actually being violent is shaky, it would be odd for the industry to take any other position.
Read the SCOTUS Blog's short analysis here. Look for a more in-depth account of today's arguments later today.
Comments
Re: SCOTUS Blog Early Analysis
So far, no word on Thomas. Did he say anything during arguments?
Re: SCOTUS Blog Early Analysis
Thomas never says anything during arguments. He's an idiot.
Re: SCOTUS Blog Early Analysis
He pushed back hard at the industry for the idea that "there simply is no problem that legislatures need to try to solve."
Looking forward to more detail because that doesn't make sense to me. There is no problem. That's one of the major absurdities of this type of legislation. I wonder if the Justices are somehow convinced otherwise.
Andrew Eisen
Re: SCOTUS Blog Early Analysis
Based on the transcript, that was the direction the questioning was going. Is there a case where the state should or can step in a regulate? The EMA's answer was a flat out no.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Could you have a law
that says the State has to put -- the dealers have to
put the violent video games in a particular area of the
video store? That is not -- and then -- you know, and
minors are not allowed in that area?
JUSTICE BREYER: Your answer -- your answer
to the first question of Justice Alito and the Chief
Justice was yes, isn't that -- that you are saying that
there is nothing they can do? So now, am I right about
that or am I not right?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So they can't say,
example, all the -- all the highest rated videos have to
be on the top shelf out of the reach of children. Can
they do that?
Just a few examples of their questing of the EMA.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Re: SCOTUS Blog Early Analysis
A correction: The lawyer representing California is the Deputy AG, not the AG.
At any rate, SCOTUSblog thinks that they'll rule for EMA but it will be a narrow ruling. Which would obviously be a victory for the good guys, but it'd mean we'd have to do this same dance again in a few years.
Still, I'll take it.