An article penned by the Editorial Board of the Oregonian calls violent games “poison to the teen mind,” and cites “a fragmented but growing body of research,” to back its hopes that the California legislation will at least “find footing” in order to “set a promising example.”

The opinion piece states that Schwarzenegger vs EMA is not exclusively about free speech, since the law does not seek an outright ban on violent games.

The California law, according to the Oregonian, would “simply prevent the neighborhood video store clerk from deciding to sell ‘Postal 2’ to a 14-year-old.”

The editorial continued, stating:

Add the Land of Lincoln to the list of states following Schwarzenegger vs. EMA in order to see which side emerges a winner.

Earlier this month we told you about a Delaware politician looking to reintroduce anti-videogame legislation if California was to emerge victorious in its Supreme Court fight, now a Daily Herald story lets us know that an Illinois politician is preparing for the same outcome.

In 2005, an Illinois law that would have governed the sale of violent games, championed by then Governor Rod Blagojevich, was eventually declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court Judge.

A discussion between two writers on the Perpetual Post website caught our eye because one of the scribes, even while expressing an aversion to violent videogames, doesn’t think the government should be in the business of limiting a child’s access to them.

In her part of the article, Molly Schoemann says that she “can’t really stomach violence of any kind—even videogame violence,” and recounted a previous experience playing Army of Two in which she was reduced to being “huddled in a pile of rubble,” where she “refused to shoot anyone.”

Yesterday we highlighted two editorials that backed California in its Supreme Court appeal over a law that would make it illegal to sell minors mature-rated violent games. Today we offer you a pair of views from people backing the game industry in its Schwarzenegger vs. EMA fight.

First up is President of the First Amendment Center Ken Paulson, who took to USA Today to offer his opinion that governing the intake of media should be left to a child’s parents or guardians.

Texas A&M International University professor and videogame researcher Christopher Ferguson has penned an editorial for the Sacramento Bee in which he argues that the state of California is acting “irresponsibly” in its push for a law that would ban the sale of adult-rated violent games to minors.

Ferguson, as readers of this site well know, tends to generate research that is more open-minded in terms of the relation between violent games, youth and aggression. As such, his research was featured prominently in the amicus brief (PDF) for Schwarzenegger vs. EMA filed by the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) and Entertainment Software Association (ESA).

Rush Limbaugh recently defended videogames after a caller to his talk show brought up the subject of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, but is Limbaugh someone that the game industry even wants on its side?

Limbaugh used the case to rail against an over abundance of government and liberalism, asking the caller to “Join me when the government gets involved in all these other behavioral and speech things that they try to tell you and control us we can't do.” He added that he was “glad” that the case was taking place, as it would push these topics (over-governing and liberalism) into the mainstream, alerting people “to what’s happening throughout society.”

Two new editorials appearing online today back California in that state’s Supreme Court fight over a law that would make it illegal for minors to purchase mature-rated violent games.

Writing for the Iowa-based Quad-City Times, columnist L. Brent Bozell argues that requiring a parent to buy such games for their offspring is “hardly shredding the Constitution.” He also infers that the videogame industry is hiding behind the First Amendment in order to stop politicians from “tampering with their sales to minors.”

For the game industry, Bozell writes, “there must be no hurdle for children to go around their parents and grab what Justice Samuel Alito called ‘the most violent, sadistic, graphic video game that can be developed.’”

The author of an opinion piece appearing in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a piece ostensibly related to the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Supreme Court case, takes a hatchet to videogames.

Author Jack Markowitz offers, “grudgingly,” that “the Supreme Court will uphold the precious freedom to sell stupid, overpriced electronic games to children.”

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show served up a segment last night offering correspondent John Hodgman’s take on the Supreme Court, Schwarzenegger vs. EMA and banning the sale of violent games to minors in California.

Hodgman, when asked by host Jon Stewart if the Supreme Court should ban violent videogames for children, responded, “No, that’s absurd John.”

He continued, tongue firmly in cheek, “Videogames are a form of expression. They are the novels of the next-generation."

California State Senator Leland Yee is the architect of the law at the center of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA and attended Tuesday’s oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court.

Reacting to the proceedings, Yee’s office issued a statement indicating that the Senator was “pleased” with the discussion in the nation’s highest court, and was particularly taken with the comments of Justice Stephen Breyer, who, Yee said, “… clearly understands the intent and need for our legislation to limit the sale of excessively violent video games to children.”

Yee Continued:

A trickle down effect is one of the game industry’s biggest fears if the Supreme Court does eventually rule in favor of California in Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, and one politician, known for her anti-game legislation attempts in the past, is chomping at the bit for just such an opportunity.

Delaware Representative Helene Keeley (pictured), a Democrat, attempted to introduce legislation in 2006 that would have placed violent videogames under her state’s obscenity statute. Her efforts sailed through the House, but failed to pass the Senate.

Combine relatively new technology with the transcripts from Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court for Schwarzenegger vs. EMA and what do you get? A rather interesting word cloud that visually illustrates the most commonly used words throughout the proceedings.

Fast Company analyzed the transcripts and infered by the prominence of words like "obscenity," "know," "whether," and "think" in the cloud that the matter is ultimately philosophical.

Indeed, in looking at the cloud, it is fascinating that the word “think” is represented in larger type than “know.”

Fast Company offered:

A total of eleven state attorneys-general backed California in its Schwarzenegger vs EMA Supreme Court run, with ten signing on to an amicus brief (PDF) penned by the eleventh, James “Buddy” Caldwell (pictured), the Attorney General of Louisiana.

Keeping abreast of where these eleven enemies of the game industry are after Election Day could allow us to possibly anticipate what vantage point they might pull off their next attack on videogames and gamers from.

Let’s see where they are now:

For a man whose name makes up half the name of a case in front of the Supreme Court, lame duck California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been remarkably silent about Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, a case which saw oral arguments presented in front of SCOTUS yesterday.

A quick look at Arnie’s tweet stream for the last week shows the Governator urging his followers to vote, congratulating the San Francisco Giants for winning the World Series, disclosing how he voted on various state propositions and congratulating his replacement, newly elected former governor Jerry Brown.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California Assembly Bill 1179 into law on October 7, 2005, setting off a chain of events that eventually led to today’s oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide whether the First Amendment can stop a state from prohibiting the sale of violent videogames to minors.

Two issues are at stake for the Court to decide: Do violent games for minors fall within a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment and does California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent videogames to minors satisfy the strict scrutiny test applicable to content-based restrictions on speech?

Arguing for the California side in Schwarzenegger vs. EMA was Supervising Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, while Jenner & Block lawyer Paul Smith took the lead for the gaming industry.

The entire time allotted for oral arguments—and questions—is one hour.

Over at Gamasutra, Attorney Greg Boyd has composed a detailed look at the California law at the center of Schwarzenegger v. EMA.  After a brief history lesson concerning what the law says and where it’s been over the last few years, Boyd speculates about how the Supreme Court may eventually rule.

“It would be surprising to the legal community if this case went against all the prior similar cases on content-based regulation. The consensus expectation is that this case will fit with the other state cases on this issue (and the two lower court decisions in California). The preliminary injunction will likely be upheld and the statute will likely be held unconstitutional.”

Outgoing Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS) head Joseph Olin, in discussing the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case with Techland, begins by admitting that he, along with “most of the creative and financial stakeholders of the interactive entertainment industry,” were “mystified” that the Supreme Court decided to grant California's petition for writ of certiorari.

Olin also demonstrates at least a little grudging respect for California State Senator Leland Yee, stating that he doesn’t believe Yee is doing all this as “a grandstand play or because he has designs to be the next governor…”

Believe it or not conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently came to the defense of videogames during a recent call to his radio show (thanks Kotaku!).

21-year old caller Cory from Waterville, Ohio posed the question to Limbaugh, asking if Schwarzenegger vs. EMA was a “relevant thing that the Supreme Court should ever be even considering.”

Limbaugh, in answering said that since he was 21 years old, he has “been concerned about the infringements on free speech that come from Democrat regimes and courts because I'm in the free speech business.”

Saying that he was "glad" that the case was happening, Limbaugh continued:

Game developer Daniel Greenberg (pictured) has authored a Washington Post opinion piece in which he argues that the Supreme Court should rule that videogames are free speech when it eventually rules on Schwarzenegger vs. EMA.

As a game developer, Greenberg called himself “disheartened and a little perplexed” at seeing games compared to cigarettes and alcohol by California State Senator Leland Yee, and he wondered “how government bureaucrats are supposed to divine the artistic value that a video game has for a 17-year-old.”

In describing newer games such as BioShock, Fable 2 and Fallout 3, Greenberg wrote:

A pair of opposing editorials appear on the USA Today website, delivering two distinct takes on Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

Common Sense Media CEO James Steyer penned a piece opposing the game industry, stating that the showdown “pits the profits of a multibillion dollar video game industry against the best interests of kids.”

Steyer, whose organization backed California with an amicus brief of its own (PDF), went on to cite American Academy of Pediatrics research to back his choice of sides, research which “declared the connection between game violence and aggression nearly as strong as the medical association between cigarettes and lung cancer.”

As we inch closer to Tuesday, when oral arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA will be presented in front of the Supreme Court, one videogame industry lawyer discussed the impact, in his opinion, a win for California in the case might have on the industry.

Reed Smith LLP’s Patrick Sweeney, council for the firm’s Corporate and Securities Group and specializing in videogames, was quoted in Industry Gamers as stating about a game industry loss in the case, “Certainly less games would be produced and there would be a corresponding job loss.”

Sweeney, continuing, stated that the influence of such a legal defeat could be even deeper:

Students at the California Western School of Law (CWSL) staged a simulation of the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case last week and ultimately, issued a ruling in favor of the game industry.

CWSL Professor Glenn Smith, organizer of the event (pictured), discussed with GamePolitics the unique approach he and his students adapted for the simulation—each student assigned to play the role of a Supreme Court Justice conducted “substantial research” into a particular judge’s past case decisions, writings and speeches in order to more effectively immerse themselves into the role.

While it may be difficult to imagine a Supreme Court Justice picking up a controller for a jaunt through Postal II, during the course of actions surrounding Schwarzenegger vs. EMA such a scenario is not totally out of the realm of possibility, at least according to the lawyer who will present the videogame industry’s side in front of the nation’s highest court next week.

In a story on the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case appearing on the American Bar Association’s (ABA) website, it was noted that California submitted a DVD to the Supreme Court that featured five minutes of violent videogame footage, with the hopes that such footage would bolster its case. The game industry chose to submit a DVD with a “more diverse array of action,” including scenes from titles like Medal of Honor and Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six.

With all of the interest around the violent video game case, Schwarzenegger v EMA, we get questions daily on the process, the case, the legal principals, our amicus brief, others’ briefs, and what is going to happen on the day of oral arguments and beyond. While we hope that the following information will shed some light on the oral argument process, we also routinely refer folks to the Supreme Court website, as well as to relevant articles on GamePolitics.

As the case surrounding a law he originally authored makes its way to the Supreme Court next week, California State Senator Leland Yee issued a handful of comments related to what will eventually be a landmark decision for gamers.

The Court will, of course, hear oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v EMA on Tuesday, November 2 at 10:00 AM.

Yee said he was “hopeful” that the Court would give “parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games.”

Yee additionally claimed that SCOTUS has "often ruled" in favor of protecting kids and limiting their access, citing topics such as "pornography, gambling, marriage, firearms, jury duty, tobacco, alcohol, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty" as examples.

Yee continued:

The President of the Americans for Limited Government (ALG) organization is against the California law at the center of the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Supreme Court case.

Bill Wilson’s editorial on the subject states that the onus for such enforcement should fall to parents, not the government, an unsurprising sentiment perhaps, given the name of the organization he heads up.

Wilson notes that the law would be so easy to get around that “its unenforceability teaches a terrible lesson to kids: That certain laws may be disregarded.” He adds, “That is a worse message than anything learned from the games. It is one that undercuts respect of all other law.”

The editorial continues:

Eat Sleep Play chief David Jaffe, while appreciating and supporting the “emotion” that has gamers signing petitions and contacting representatives in the face of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, thinks that such tactics are “pointless and naïve.”

Jaffe view is that the Supreme Court isn’t a democracy and does not rule based on “a vocal majority- let alone a vocal minority like gamers and other media folks.”

Therefore, “none of our views on this will matter one bit” and "... it just seems like a big exercise to make people feel like they are making a difference..."

Jaffe’s full (and unedited) comment (thanks VG247):

The trade publication Vending Times has published an opinion piece about the upcoming Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Supreme Court case, saying that a win for the state of California could give politicians more power to eradicate the U.S. amusement industry.

The Parents Television Council (PTC) is urging its ranks to thank attorneys-general from the states that supported the California side in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case now before the Supreme Court.

The PTC’s website features the mailing and email addresses for AGs from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas and Virgina in order to make the process easier.

But what if you don’t live in one of the aforementioned states? The PTC then would urge you to “please write to thank California Governor Arnold Schwartzeneggar and California State Senator Leland Yee for creating and supporting this law.” Lee especially might appreciate such correspondence, as he, “in particular has come under attack from the videogame industry.”

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) chief Michael Gallagher, along with Michigan Retailers Association (MRA) CEO James Hallan, took to the Lansing State Journal website for an opinion piece outlining the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Supreme Court battle could impact retailers.

The piece states that the “misguided” California law—which contains “subjective and indefinite language” in relation to what would constitute an offensive game—is “particularly concerning for retailers,” because “the retail industry has already taken giant strides toward ensuring that violent videos do not end up in children's hands.”

According to the opinion piece, the “vague law” could be trouble for retailers because: