In an editorial entitled "Your mom will hate 'Dead Space 2,' but does anyone care?," writer Tim Dunn ponders why EA's marketing department has used a technique usually used for teens and children for a mature rated game. Further, he wonders why EA would even think about using such a campaign when the Supreme Court is hearing a case about keeping ultra violent video games out of the hands of you children.

While his comments might seems a little overblown, he points out some valid concerns as well. He mentions mature games such as Heavy Rain and Red Dead Redemption, which carry a mature rating because they are telling stories and tackling topics that are geared towards adults. The Dead Space 2 campaign plays on "juvenile notions of maturity gamers have worked hard to change." In other words, the marketing for the game takes that fight a step back.

Here is more from Dunn:

An excellent editorial appearing in the February 2011 issue of Reason Magazine explains quite plainly why it is ridiculous that California is fighting for the 2005 law written by Leland Yee and signed into law by then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Writer Jacob Sullum starts the article by pointing out the irony of Arnold signing into a law a bill that bans violent media.

This from the same guy who starred in movies like Eraser, Commando, Terminator 1 and 2, End of Days, Last Action Hero, Predator, Total Recall, The 6th Day, and many more. Most recently, he did a cameo in The Expendables - an ultra violent action movie starring an all-star cast of aging action stars.

The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) and the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance (MESA) announced that EA Sports President Peter Moore will keynote the 2011 GameSupply Summit. Moore will deliver a speech entitled "Digital Play – What’s The Future," which attempts to address the process of making money in the digital, free-to-play, subscription and micro-transaction space of video games.

The one-day event is scheduled to take place February 2 in Burbank, CA at the Marriott Burbank Airport hotel.

The GameSupply Summit is a gathering of game retailers, distributors, analysts, content creators, and publishers to discuss and exchange ideas related to interactive entertainment supply. 2011 marks the third year for the event.

Not every teenage boy backs the video game industry when it comes to banning the sale of violent video games to children in California. Take 16-year-old Daniel Willens, a junior at Sonoma Academy -- a preparatory school in Santa Rosa, California, for example.

The teenager penned an editorial in the Press Democrat called "PRO: Minors shouldn't be allowed to buy violent games." Daniel sounds like many of the other supporters of the 2005 law written by California State Senator (D-San Francisco). Daniel opens with the following statement:

It is one thing to read a transcript of oral arguments in a court case, but to get the full effect, audio or video is the best way to figure out just how convincing each side’s arguments are. C-Span has audio of the oral arguments Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants available on its web site. The audio features the comments of lawyers for both sides, along with all of the chief justices hearing the case.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association on November 2, in which the state of California challenged a lower court ruling that the law was unconstitutional. Lawyers for the EMA argued that the lower courts made the right decision and explained why the law was flawed.

You can listen to the audio here.

The Entertainment Merchants Association plans to hold its second annual GamePlan Summit September 13 - 15, 2011 at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago, Illinois. The event allows both game publishers and retailers to meet for one-on-one meetings and to discuss strategic issues both sectors face in the year ahead.

"EMA’s GamePlan Summit’s success is due to our exhibitors’ support and their continued effort to rise and meet the challenges of the growing demand for the compelling experience found in video gaming," said EMA President and CEO Bo Andersen. "EMA is pleased to offer a platform for strategic planning and growth for this dynamic segment of the entertainment industry."

Next year's event will feature a new Executive Forum about the future of the industry and a special charity event benefitting the EMA Scholarship Foundation.

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).

The Entertainment Merchants Association president issued a brief statement on today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court related to Schwarzenegger v. EMA. Overall EMA's top executive seemed upbeat about the whole ordeal:

"Today’s U.S. Supreme Court argument in Schwarzenegger v. EMA was both spirited and stimulating. I’m pleased that the justices recognized that the standard in the California law for restricting 'violent video games' to minors is unworkable in practice. I am confident that the justices will see beyond the facial appeal of restricting “violent video games” for minors and hold the law unconstitutional." - EMA President Bo Andersen.

Thanks Hal Halpin. More information about the EMA can be found at www.entertainmentmerchantsassociation.org/.

[GamePolitics is an ECA publication.]

The Entertainment Merchants Association passed us a quick note to let us know that the AirTalk program on KPCC ((National Public Radio in Pasadena, CA) will run a segment on (Monday, November 1 at 11:00 am PT) about the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case. Arguments for and against the California video game law will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 2. The ECA will be holding a rally on the steps of the court in support of the game industry and gamers.

The AirTalk Segment will feature Dr. Chris Ferguson of Texas A&M and Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan discussing the pros and cons of both sides of the issue. AirTalk is streamed live at www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk.

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:

According to a report on the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, a new rule from Consumer Product Safety Commission may make it so that packaged media like DVDs, videogames, and other products aimed at children will have tracking labels attached to them (PDF).

Part of the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), the rule was meant to satisfy a congressional mandate for safety recalls on children’s products related to things like lead levels from toys and other products from China.

While we’ll be trying to gain entrance into the Supreme Court to hear Schwarzenegger vs EMA oral arguments on November 2, even if questionable credentials or a nefarious past preclude us from gaining access, a recording of the arguments will be made available on the SCOTUS website.

The new recording release initiative, as detailed on the SCOTUS website, begins with the current October term and will see audio files posted to the SCOTUS website on Fridays, under the Oral Arguements section of the site's menu.

Recently the Entertainment Merchants Association (who you may know best for their upcoming Supreme Court battle against the state of California) handed out honors to publishers and retailers for their contributions to the game industry as part of its GamePlan Summit (thanks to Gamasutra). Honorees include Best, GameStop, and Gamefly, among others.

Activision and GameStop took away the most honors: Activision was honored for Best Use of Social Networks (for Modern Warfare 2), Best Packaging (Modern Warfare 2), and Best Publisher’s Marketing Campaign (Modern Warfare 2). GameStop was honored for Best Game Department, and Best Retail Promotion and Marketing.

Billing the California law at the heart of the Schwarzenegger vs EMA Supreme Court case as the “latest in a long history of overreactions to new expressive media,” the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) have filed their argument against the restriction of videogame sales in California.

The brief contends that videogames are a form of expression “as rich in content as books and movies,” and that they “are fully protected by the First Amendment.”

It was written that “California’s argument is not saved by the fact that the State is purportedly acting to assist parents,” adding:

An Alaskan law that goes into effect on July 1, and deals with the electronic distribution of indecent material to minors, has come under fire by free speech advocates.

Section 11.61.128 of the Alaska Statutes, signed into law by Governor Sean Parnell (pictured hugging his predecessor) in May, calls for parties to be criminally liable for media transmissions (or hosting) of material that is considered “harmful to minors.” Additionally, violators can face up to two years in prison, could be forced to forfeit their business and would have to register as sex offenders.

Those in opposition label the law as “broad censorship,” and claim that “it bans from the Internet anything that may be ‘harmful to minors,’ including material adults have a First Amendment right to view.”

The National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) is not pleased about the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the California side of the Schwarzenegger v. EMA appeal and is asking for assistance from the gaming community as it prepares an Amicus Brief for submission to the Court.

In a blog post, the NYRA theorizes that no Supreme Court member has ever played a game, nor, (most likely) have the lawyers arguing for either side. As a “defender of the rights of youth,” and “as gamers,” the NYRA stated that “we need to make it clear that video games are more than random violence and that no one should be denied access to them.”

Here is what the organization is looking for:

Bob Geistman, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing at entertainment distribution company Ingram Entertainment has been reelected to his post as Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), according to a note on Home Media Magazine.

New additions to the board included Dish Network’s Bruce Eisen, Blockbuster’s Rod Murray, Netflix’s Erin Ruane and Amazon’s Steve Oliver. Current members reelected included Vice Chairman John Marmaduke from Hastings Entertainment, Treasurer Marty Graham from Rentrak, Secretary Bill Lee from Toys “R” Us and Executive Committee Members At-Large Troy Peterson from Target and Chuck Porter of Giant Eagle.

In other recent EMA news, the organization inducted the 1988 movie Heathers into its Hall of Fame, where it reside alongside Casablanca, The Godfather, Grease, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Wizard of Oz, and Scarface.

The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA, or the trade group that's set to battle the state of California over its videogame law before the Supreme Court later this year, if you prefer) reports that consumer transactions for prerecorded video content (DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, and digital content) grew nearly 3 percent to $3.5 billion in 2009. The statistics come from a new report released by the trade organization representing retailers called "The D2 Report: Discs & Digital - The Business of Home Entertainment Retailing."

According to that report physical media including DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and video game discs remain the overwhelming choice of consumers, even as digital delivery channels such as electronic sell-through and rental are experiencing what the EMA calls "tremendous growth." Combined DVD and Blu-ray Disc sales totaled $17.9 billion in 2009, nine times the revenue generated by digital distribution channels, and 80 - 90 percent of paid video game software purchases were on physical media.

While the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has until September 10 to file its own brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to Schwarzenegger v. EMA, the organization issued a statement in reaction to a brief filed by the state of California on Monday.

Trumpeting the ESA's dominating string of victories in such cases, and perhaps attempting to take some of the wind out of the sails of California State Senator Leland Yee, ESA President and CEO Michael Gallagher stated:

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) President Michael Gallagher is “humble” about how trade group might fare in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, as the nation’s highest court prepares to rule on Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger, which centers on a California law that attempts to make it illegal to rent or sell violent videogames to underage consumers.

In a pre-E3 briefing recounted by Joystiq, Gallagher said about the case, “We believe we're on the side of right here. We've believed that for 10 years. That hasn't wavered one iota. You go into this preparing to win, but also very prepared to handle the other conclusions as well”

The Coalition of Entertainment Retail Trade Associations (CERTA) has once again billed June as “Entertainment Ratings and Labeling Awareness Month.”

The organization of organizations selected June as the month for its annual initiative since it is the kickoff to summer, when “young people have more free time to enjoy movies, music and videogames.”

The group offers the following tips to parents looking to ensure their children only view age appropriate material:

Following the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, some free speech advocates painted her First Amendment stance as a concern, which caused a bit of anxiety in the gaming world as Kagan (if confirmed) would have a voice in the SCOTUS review of Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger.

New Kagan documents released today by the White House, may cast the nominee in a different light however. AOL News gathered some details from the document dump that could be interpreted to show Kagan as a champion of media. The following are “significant cases” listed by Kagan herself from the time period when she served as an associate at Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991:

Southern California Public Radio yesterday aired a 30-minute segment (MP3) on the California violent videogame law that will be discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

California State Senator Leland Yee appeared, and voiced much of the same opinions that he offered up through a mini-podcast his camp released yesterday. Representing the other side was Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) VP of Public Affairs Sean Bersell.

Bersell framed the current drama as he sees it:

California State Senator Leland Yee (D), the man behind the original legislation that has now made its way to the United States Supreme Court, released a short piece of audio (MP3 here) in which he offers reactions to SCOTUS’ decision to review the law.

Yee termed himself “thrilled” with yesterday’s news, calling it an “affirmation of some of the things that I have been thinking about, working on…”

He called the law a “balanced bill,” saying that “it tries to do what it can to protect and help kids, but at the same time, not trample on our First Amendment.”

Yee on the surprise most felt when hearing that SCOTUS would review the case:

Via Orders of the Court (PDF) just issued at 10:00 AM ET this morning, The Supreme Court of the United States has granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to the California side of Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger.

This means that the nation’s top court will indeed review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of California in February of 2009, which struck down a California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell violent videogames to consumers under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the law would be subject to fines of up to $1,000.

The nation’s highest court will gather this Friday in order to discuss, among other things, whether or not it should review a California law preventing the sale of violent videogames to children.

The Supreme Court’s website shows that Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) v. Schwarzenegger was “distributed for conference of April 23, 2010.” The order was dated April 20, 2010, giving more credence to popular thought that case number 08-1448 was shelved until a decision was reached on the First Amendment case of United States v. Stevens, in which the Court voted 8-1 that the government cannot outlaw expressions of animal cruelty.

The Supreme Court today issued a ruling on a First Amendment case that could have a direct impact on the Entertainment Merchants Association v. Schwarzenegger appeal which has been languishing in the nation’s top court.

United States v. Stevens centered on the rights of Robert Stevens to sell or traffic in media that depicted animal cruelty. Stevens was arrested under a 1999 law that attempted to forbid the depiction of cruelty against animals. SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that the government, per the SCOTUS Blog, “lacks the power to outlaw expressions of animal cruelty, when that is done in videotapes and other commercial media.” The decision (PDF) essentially nullifies the 199 law.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote that the court “was not restricting the power of government to punish actual acts of animal cruelty,” but that “there was no similar history behind Congress’s attempt to ban video or other portrayals of acts of cruelty to living creatures.”

Entertainment Consumer Association (ECA) President Hal Halpin recently discussed gamers’ rights with the website Skewed & Reviewed.

Among the topics broached were Digital Rights Management (DRM), M-rated game sales, triumphs of the past year and the challenges still remaining.

Halpin on the greatest single current threat to gamers’ rights:

Again, generally, digital rights as it relates to consumers. More particularly, I’d say that a challenge within that challenge may be that we still have a lot of work to do regarding combating negative stereotypes of gamers and gaming.

On further reducing the sale of adult-rated games to minors:

Beyond that, I believed and continue to believe, that parental responsibility must begin there. To ask more of the merchant is unfair and unprecedented, compared with how DVDs, music and motion pictures are sold. They¹ve done and are doing enough.

Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA

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.