A California gamer whose lawsuit against Sony Computer Entertainment America was tossed out of court last month has filed an appeal.

Resistance: Fall of Man player Erik Estavillo originally filed a complaint against SCEA on July 6th of this year, alleging that Sony suppressed his free speech rights by banning him from the PlayStation Network. Estavillo further claimed that disabling his account amounted to a theft of his PSN pre-paid points and that SCEA was unable to stop users under 17 years of age from playing.

A judge dismissed Estavillo’s lawsuit on September 22, 2009, ruling that there was no plausible First Amendment claim for relief.

The appeal was filed on October 19 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Update: Estavillo also filed (on October 14th) a civil lawsuit against SCEA in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara seeking $180,000.

Estavillo tells GP he is representing himself in these cases and, in light of his PSN ban, is playing the Wii (Metroid Trilogy) and Xbox 360 (Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe). Estavillo said that he loves playing as The Joker in the latter title and may be “a bit obsessed” with the character, adding, “I plan to wear a purple suit during my court trials. No joke!”

The office of California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) let us know that the politician has been honored by the First Amendment Coalition (FAC) with its Beacon Award.

The award recognizes Yee’s “legislation in support of government transparency and the rights of student journalists and their advisers.”

The original author of California’s videogame law, which is still sitting in appeal before the United States Supreme Court, said about the award:

There is little that I take greater pride in than our legislative efforts to increase transparency of government and protect the speech rights of California students.  With the help of the First Amendment Coalition, we have passed landmark open government laws.  Unfortunately, at times, we have also fallen victim to the Governor's veto pen.

Yee was one of four Beacon Award winners. Full details can be viewed here.

Videogame legal watchdogs were anxiously refreshing the Supreme Court website this morning for the latest word on the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger appeal.

Unfortunately, however, the case was not listed at all in the 91-page issued Orders (link to PDF). As noted previously, SCOTUS could have denied the appeal without comment last week and then officially noted the result in today’s dispatch., but it appears that the petition for certiorari has neither been granted or denied as of yet.
 

As noted earlier this week, the Supreme Court was scheduled to look into an appeal of Entertainment Merchants Association v. Schwarzenegger yesterday, September 29.

EMA v. Schwarzenegger was not on the list of Miscellaneous Orders issued this morning by SCOTUS, which could mean that the petition was denied. When considering a petition for certiorari, SCOTUS will deny such appeals without comment, but the official outcome won’t be known for sure until Monday morning, when an Order List is issued from the Court.

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to address an appeal of a Californian videogame law tomorrow, September 29.

Entertainment Merchants Association v. Schwarzenegger (formerly known as The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) v. Schwarzenegger), revolves around a Californian law that banned the sale of certain videogames to anyone under 18 years of age. First signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2005, the law was rejected again in February of 2009 by the 9th Circuit Court of California, which upheld an earlier 2007 ruling that deemed the law unconstitutional.

Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown appealed to the Supreme Court in May of this year, marking the first time a case involving the restriction of violent game sales to minors has ever been considered by the top court of the United States.

As part of the proceedings, The Supreme Court will also decide whether to accept the amicus brief filed by California State Senator Leland Yee (D) in July of 2009. In the brief, Lee, who authored the original statute at the center of the whole case, argues why the Supreme Court should approve the state of California’s petition for a full hearing. He was supported in the brief by the California Psychiatric and California Psychological Associations.

The Supreme Court’s decision could take a few days or more. A final decision should be made public by next Monday, October 5.

Update: Just to clarify, The Supreme Court did consider a similar topic when ruling on American Amusement Machine Association et al. v Kendrick et al. in 2001, when it denied the City of Indianapolis' petition for certiorari. That case centered on an attempt by the city to limit the display and operation of currency-based machines deemed harmful to minors.

A 17 year old student detonated two pipe bombs in a San Mateo, California high school on Monday before being subdued by faculty members.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the boy was wearing a bulletproof vest and was armed with an additional eight pipe bombs, a two-foot long sword and a chainsaw. Police said that the student planned to set off the bombs and then attack survivors with the other weapons.

Gadget blog Gizmodo wonders whether there may have been a video game connection: 

If you're wondering why this is on Gizmodo—and you guys always do—it's because those weapons inherently remind me of movie and video game weapons. I'm not trying to say that video games cause violence or don't cause violence, but what I'm saying is that when a 17 year old man-child thinks he can corner his classmates while dual wielding a chainsaw and a sword probably played a lot of doom and zelda and didn't do very well in gym class, so would get tired very quickly.

A second report by the SF Chronicle describes the boy as a "techno wizard." His mother thought the bomb-making components were being used to build model rockets.

A 27-year-old college student arrested yesterday by federal agents is charged with modding video game consoles.

Matthew Lloyd Crippen, who attends Cal State Fullerton, was charged with tweaking systems from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. The arrest was made by agents of the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), reports NBC Los Angeles.

Modifying consoles to circumvent video game copyright protection measures is a federal offense under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The investigation into Crippen's activities came following a complaint by the Entertainment Software Association; the trade group lobbies on behalf of U.S. video game publishers.

Special Agent in Charge Robert Schoch, who heads the ICE office in L.A. commented on the bust:

Playing with games in this way is not a game -- it is criminal. Piracy, counterfeiting and other intellectual property rights violations not only cost U.S. businesses jobs and billions of dollars a year in lost revenue, they can also pose significant health and safety risks to consumers.

In the latest edition of his Soapbox, G4's Adam Sessler expresses the view that video game censorship is pretty much gone, but that gamers should be watchful for its return.

GP: Here at GamePolitics, we're waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in the California case later this year. At that point, we'll have a better handle on where the game censorship issue is heading.

Sometime this fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review California's appeal of lower court rulings striking down its 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the video game industry submitted its position to the Court.

In a 41-page brief compiled by attorney Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, the game industry relies heavily on precedents set by a history of failed attempts by state and local governments to impose age-based restrictions on video games. Indeed, the game biz has never lost such a case and Smith has been their successful point man for many years. From the brief:

Despite [California's] efforts to conjure up some argument for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, in reality the decision is a routine application of established First Amendment principles to a content-based ban on protected expression.

Petitioners offer no persuasive reason for the Court to review this ruling. There is no split of
[past decisions] on the questions presented. To the contrary, the lower courts are unanimous as to the constitutionality of bans on distribution of violent video games. That is unsurprising...

California was not the first state to try to restrict distribution of video games it considered too violent for minors. Such laws have proved politically popular, but every one has been struck down under the First Amendment...

Smith and his fellow attorney also dig into California's assertion that children should be legally shielded from violent video games as they are from obscenity. California's causation arguments, which attempt to link violent video games to violent behavior, are also taken to task.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the game industry brief here (41-page PDF)...

As GamePolitics indicated yesterday, an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief has been filed in support of California's petition requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court review the constitutionality of the state's 2005 violent video game law. To date, two lower federal courts have deemed the measure unconstitutional.

The brief was filed today on behalf of State Sen. Leland Yee (D), the sponsor of the contested statute as well as the California Psychiatric and California Psychological Associations. Yee himself is a child psychologist by profession. He also notes in the brief that he has authored several bills protecting free speech rights in circumstances other than violent games.

In seeking to explain to the Supreme Court why it should approve California's petition for a full hearing, the 15-page document maintains that the state has a compelling interest in restricting children's access to such games. The oft-heard argument about the interactivity of video games is among the theories put forth:

The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior.

 

This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth...

The brief also suggests that video games present a new type of challenge for parents in their efforts to monitor their children's media diet:

Parents can read a book, watch a movie or listen to a CD to discern if it is appropriate for their child. These violent video games, on the other hand, can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery.

And, while federal courts have not to date been swayed by research suggesting that violent video games lead to real-world violence, the brief points to such studies in support of its position:

Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published...

 

These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence...

Surprisingly, GamePolitics comes in for a mention in the brief. GP's Legislation Tracker feature is referenced as a means of pointing out the wide variety of legislation aimed at video games around the United States.

Sen. Yee's office has issued a press release on the filing of the amicus brief, including a link to the brief (15-page PDF). The Supreme Court is expected to consider California's petition in the fall.

Via press release, GamePolitics has learned that California State Sen. Leland Yee (D) will be joined by a pair of mental health organizations in filing an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief with the United States Supreme Court tomorrow in support of the state's petition to overturn a 9th Circuit Court ruling that California's 2005 violent video game law - drafted by Yee - is unconstitutional.

The official announcement will be made at 10:00 A.M. Pacific Time by Yee and representatives of the California Psychiatric and California Psychological Associations. Sen. Yee is a child psychologist by trade.

GamePolitics will have more - including a copy of the brief - in our Wednesday coverage.

A PlayStation 3 gamer has filed suit in U.S. District Court in California, alleging that SCEA suppressed his free speech rights and caused him pain and suffering by banning his account on the PlayStation Network.

In a complaint filed on July 6th, Erik Estavillo of San Jose writes that he his disabled by a variety of disorders; among these are agoraphobia, a fear of crowds:

The pain and suffering was caused by the defendant, Sony, banning the plaintiff's account on the PlayStation 3 Network, in which the plaintiff relies on to socialize with other people, since it's the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia...

Estavillo's issues with SCEA apparently stem from his play of the PS3 hit Resistance: Fall of Man:

The ban is supposedly due to the behavior of the plaintiff when he plays the video game "Resistance: Fall of Man," which Sony owns and employs moderators for its online play. These moderators kick and ban players that they feel are deserving; though their biases to a player seem to be what determines the kick or ban...

 

The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network...

Estavillo also claims that the PSN ban amounts to a theft of his pre-paid points:

The plaintiff...cannot access [his] money when a moderator from Resistance and Sony gives a player a arbitrary wide-range ban... which in essence, is stealing money from the player...

Estavillo also argues that the EULA for online play of Resistance is ineffective in blocking players under the game's recommended age of 17, although it's unclear how this fits into his claim.

In his request to the court, Estavillo, who appears to be unrepresented, asks that SCEA be enjoined from banning players. He also seeks $55,000 in punitive damages.

To date, SCEA has not filed a response with the Court. GamePolitics has requested comment on the lawsuit from SCEA.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of Estavillo vs. SCEA here...

A veteran First Amendment attorney has ripped California's 2005 violent video game statute along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the measure into law.

As GamePolitics has extensively reported, in May California petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court rulings which held that the measure is unconstitutional. The Court is expected to announce its decision in the fall.

Broadcasting & Cable reports on criticisms of the California law penned by Robert Corn-Revere (left):

In 2009, the killer cyborg turned governor has materialized in the present from the past in a plot to undermine the First Amendment.

In seeking review, California is asking the Supreme Court to reverse 60 years of First Amendment jurisprudence and to hold that 'excessively violent' material-whatever that may be-'deserves no constitutional protection.' It is also asking the Court to relieve government from actually having to demonstrate the purported harmfulness of speech it seeks to regulate, but instead to defer to "reasonable inferences" and legislative judgments.

If California is successful, it will open the door to regulate not just video games, but a wide range of speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment.

The conservative Eagle Forum has filed an amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of California's 2005 violent video game law.

As GamePolitics reported last month, California Attorney General Jerry Brown petitioned the High Court to review a U.S. District Court ruling that the state's 2005 law blocking the sale of violent games to minors is unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court upheld the District Court decision in a February ruling.

The family values group, founded by conservative Phyllis Schlafly (left) in 1967, filed the brief on Monday. The document was authored by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis and founder of Conservapedia (sort of the anti-Wikipedia). In the amicus brief, the Eagle Forum lays an array of societal problems at the feet of violent video games: bad grades, violent behavior, poor graduation rates, school shootings, game addiction and even sudden death.

We'll let the Eagle Forum's laundry list speak for itself (with a little help from GP's trusty red pen):

The First Amendment does not render our nation’s youth defenseless against the predatory, billion-dollar video game industry that churns out increasingly graphic blood and gore for impressionable minds to imbibe...

 

The corruption of our nation’s youth with increasingly deviant video games is a matter of national importance. Our nation’s youth is in crisis, by any measure. A calamitous 30% of our nation’s youth fail to graduate from public high school, and only 32% of those who attend public high school are ever qualified to attend a four-year college...

 

A substantial percentage of teenagers are hooked on these disturbing video games, and spend many hours each week playing them. Moreover, mass killings perpetrated by youngsters are frequently linked to addiction to violent video games...

 

The First Amendment does not forbid state legislatures from keeping this harmful material from children. The California legislature, not known to be conservative, protected its youth against the predatory video game industry. It was an error with national implications for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the California statute...

Violent video games hurt children in two ways. Their increasingly realistic and disturbing images burn into children’s impressionable minds much as pornography does, and the role-playing inherent in a video game causes the child to buy into the rampages of murder and other heinous crimes that he is acting out...

 

The early market leader in video games was Nintendo, which adopted a policy against “excessive blood and violence,” but it was trounced in sales by a 3 to 1 margin by more gory material produced by Sega, and Nintendo learned the message that “violence sells video games to children...”

 

Numerous studies confirm the obvious: violent video games do cause addiction and harm... There has never been a full First Amendment right to flash highly objectionable and disturbing images specifically at children, or to entice them to participate in destructive role-playing behavior...

Displaying a shocking image to a child is conceptually identical to the utterance of “fighting words” to an adult, which this Court famously held to be out-side of First Amendment protection...

The stress attributed to violent video games can even be physically harmful. Eighteen-year-old Peter Burkowski, an avid video gamer, collapsed and died of a heart attack while playing games in an arcade...

 

Children who play violent video games have difficulty obeying authorities, treating peers properly, and succeeding in school...

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the Eagle Forum's amicus brief here.

On Tuesday Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa officially welcomed E3 back to the City of Angels with a presentation to ESA boss Mike Gallagher and a ceremonial ribbon cutting.

And, why not? As the Los Angeles Times reports, E3 2009 generated more than $15 million in commerce for the city.

There's no truth to the rumor, by the way, that those giant scissors are a new Wii peripheral.
 

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D, at left) will extend an official welcome to E3 2009 tomorrow afternoon, according to a press release issued by the Entertainment Software Association, which operates the expo.

The 3:30 p.m. ceremony will mark the official opening day of E3 and will feature a ribbon cutting by Mayor Villarigosa, ESA boss Mike Gallagher and Mark Liberman, head of LA INC.

The event will take place outside the West Hall lobby of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Now that California has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether its 2005 violent video game law is constitutional, President Obama's recent nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Court takes on added significance for the video game industry.

That being the case, where does Sotomayor stand on free speech issues? Her record appears to be  mixed, according to a source with knowledge of the legal issues involved in the California appeal.

On the plus side for the video game industry, Sotomayor dissented from a majority of her colleagues on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court in Pappas v. Giuliani. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that an NYPD officer should not have been fired for responding, off-duty, to an e-mail request for a charitable donation with a racist and bigoted language. As SCOTUSblog reports:

She acknowledged that the speech was 'patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,' but cautioned the majority against 'gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.'

On the other hand, Fordham Prof. Paul Levinson - who has argued free speech issues with Jack Thompson - writes that Sotomayor should be disqualified from the High Court over a what he calls a "bad 1st Amendment Decision."

In the case, Doninger v. Niehoff, Sotomayor and her 2nd Circuit colleagues supported high school officials who barred a student from holding class office after the young lady referred to school officials as "douchebags" in an off-campus blog. While the courts have traditionally given school officials some degree of leeway in maintaining order, Levinson remains concerned about Sotomayor:

[Retiring Justice] David Souter was a surprise to the Republicans who appointed him... His vote made a difference on the side of progressive and humane issues in many a Supreme Court decision.

We cannot afford or risk a Souter in reverse with this new appointment - a Justice who seems to have a progressive record, but who turns out to have an insufficient passion for protecting and strengthening the freedoms that make our country great.

Meanwhile, the California appeal has been docketed by the Supreme Court. The video game industry has until June 22nd to submit its response to California's petition.

UPDATE: Paul Smith of Jenner Block, who has been the video game industry's lead attorney in challenging video game legislation over the years, discusses the cases mentioned here on Talk Radio News and describes Sotomayor as:

She's a careful person who could go either way, but is focused on not just broad doctrine but how the doctrine applies to particular factual situations. Certainly that's true in the First Amendment free speech area.

An expert on media law has told the Christian Science Monitor it is unlikely that the United States Supreme Court will accept California's petition to review the constitutionality of its violent video game law.

Dave Kohler (left), who heads the Southwestern Law School Donald Biederman Entertainment and Media Law Institute, told the CSM:

For a variety of reasons, I don't think [the Justices will] take [California's case]. The most significant one is the fact that if you apply this [violence] standard to video games, then you have to apply it to television, movies, and pay cable shows as well.

You're talking about the central topic of many of the great works of literature throughout history.

Aong that line, the CSM takes note of the 2001 ruling by Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court. In striking down an Indianapolis game violence statute, Posner wrote:

To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Read Judge Posner's decision in AAMA v. Kendrick.

This week's announcement that California would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of its 2005 violent video game law did not escape the notice of Woody Hearn, who draws GU Comics.

At left is Hearn's rendition of California State Senator Leland Yee (D), the driving force behind the contested legislation. There's also mention of a mysterious man named "Jack." Who could that be?

Click here to view the full comic.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), whose office will handle California's U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a lower court ruling that the state's 2005 violent video game law is unconstitutional, ripped such games in an interview with Ben Fritz of the Los Angeles Times:

These video game makers are shamelessly exploiting vulnerable children for profit. And in the same way pornography can be banned, pornographic violence can be banned as well.

I think, as Justice [Robert H. Jackson] once said, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact*. Disseminating this kind of poison to children is noxious.

However, the Christian Science Monitor notes that Brown is said to be eyeing a run for governor in 2010. Entertainment lawyer Ezra Doner told the CSM:

It's political grandstanding [by Brown]. It's a no-lose proposition for the attorney general. Who would say they don't want to keep children safe?...

 

[Brown] may want to focus national attention on the political balance of the Supreme Court. Picking such a hot-button issue as this would bring national attention to the court just as the president goes about choosing another justice.

* As per Wikipedia:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a rhetorical phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must give way to urgent practical needs.