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):

Insomniac Games front man Ted Price took to his blog this week to chide a website about cherry-picking quotes from an interview and creating a facetious story out of it.

While that part of the blog post was interesting, Price's secondary comments on the California law that will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in early November were particularly noteworthy.

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 FairfaxCounty Times profiles Josh Blackman, a 2009 graduate of George Mason University's law school, who (for the purpose of discussion here) created an interesting fantasy league game about the Supreme Court. That game, www.fantasyscotus.net, lets users be the "tenth justice," deciding (or predicting the outcomes of) the big cases of the day.

"The idea really began last year during the [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission] case," Blackman told the paper. "A friend ... was like, 'What do you think the odds are on this case?' ... I took that idea and ran with it."

The fantasy league game is in its second year, and has about 5,000+ participants.

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:

The Parents Television Council (PTC) has a short editorial up on its site in which the organization defends the California law at the heart of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, claiming that the videogame industry has “resorted to half-truths to try to make its point.”

As far as the law restricting First Amendment rights, the PTC says it “does no such thing,” but “merely prevents the most objectionable content from being sold directly to children.”

Do children also have a "right" to purchase cigarettes and alcohol? Of course not! If the law prevents children from directly purchasing other types of material that is inappropriate or harmful for them, why shouldn't parents be able to rest easy knowing their child won’t be able to buy ultra-violent games without their permission?

The petitioner in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Supreme Court Case is the state of California, and as such, it receives the opportunity to furnish the Court with a reply brief, in which it can argue against statements presented in the brief of the respondent.

California has done just this, submitting its reply brief (PDF, thanks PHX Corp!) in which it begins by stating that the respondents are off base in their attacks:

Respondents and their amici paint an alarming picture of government censorship of both classic and contemporary art and literature, ignoring the level of extreme violence depicted in the narrow category of video games that is actually covered by the Act.

The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) is inviting concerned gamers to participate in a pro-gaming rally on November 2 in Washington D.C., the same day that the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case.

The rally will take place on the steps of the Court, which is located at One First Street NE, at 9 AM. Oral arguments for the landmark videogame case are scheduled for 10AM ET.

The ECA noted:

The Entertainment Software Association’s (ESA) Video Game Voters Network (VGVN) has posted the first batch of user submitted photos showing controllers submitted to California State Senator Leland Yee.

The VGVN, for those who missed it, is urging the gaming populace to show its distaste for the Yee-authored law, which, under the guise of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, will appear in front of the Supreme Court on November 2, by sending in controllers with the words “I Believe in the First Amendment” written on them.

George Rose, Activision Blizzard’s Chief Public Policy Officer penned a column for the Orange County Register in which he called the California law at the heart of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA “onerous,” and "unnecessary.”

Rose claimed that a SCOTUS approval of the law would “hijack” the First Amendment rights of young people “by unjustifiably creating a special exception to unprotected free speech not only for video games, but any other form of expression.”

He also worried that the law would put “innocent store clerks at serious legal and financial risk,” all for a law that is “already moot.”

Rose explained:

Following yesterday’s news that the ESA - via their Video Game Voters Network - is asking gamers to send California State Senator Leland Yee broken or old videogame controllers with  “I believe in the First Amendment” written on them, we reached out to the Senator’s office for comment.

Yee’s Chief of Staff Adam Keigwin replied that, “I can only assume these broken controllers must represent the broken promises of the video game industry to parents.”

The response continued:

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.

The Entertainment Software Association’s (ESA) Video Game Voters Network (VGVN) has launched a promotion designed to tweak California State Senator Leland Yee, the original author of that state’s videogame law which is now in front of the Supreme Court.

A good handful of gamers have probably destroyed a controller in a fit of rage, and while there’s a handful of things that the useless accessories could be used for, the ESA - via VGVN - is urging game enthusiasts to take the broken controller (or an old one), scribble “I believe in the First Amendment” on it and send it off to Senator Yee’s office.

Entertainment Software Association president and CEO Michael D. Gallagher penned and editorial for the Baltimore Sun newspaper explaining what is at stake in early November when the Supreme Court reviews the 2005 California Video Game law. The thrust of his argument is that the First Amendment to the Constitution holds importance significance in our society. It was designed by the founding fathers to protect citizens from the government abridging the right to speak freely.

He also points out that the state of California is trying to abridge the free speech rights of game makers based on the unproven notion that consuming video game violence influences users to engage in real world acts of violence. The data that the law is based on was questioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which it called not substantial enough to prove that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.

While he touches on a number of other reasons why the law is misguided and false, the closing paragraphs of Gallagher’s op-ed piece sums up nicely the main reason why the law should not stand:

The Supreme Court opens for a new session today, and with a number of cases on its docket involving technology—including, of course, Schwarzenegger vs. EMA—how up-to-date on the latest gadgets and means of communication are the SCOTUS Justices?

It’s a logical question and one posed by an American Public Media host to a recent guest, Professor Jeffrey Rosen from the George Washington University Law School, who also writes for the New Republic

“Some are pretty plugged-in,” was Rosen’s initial answer.

“Justice Thomas telecommutes; he does a lot of his work at home over the Internet and emails drafts in,” said Rosen, adding, “Justice Breyer certainly uses a cell phone. He is quite tech savy and uses email extensively.”

Rosen continued:

Earlier this week, we reported on the results of a moot court hosted by the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at William & Mary Law School, in which several noted journalists, legal scholars, and even a federal judge sat down to hash out a mock version of the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case pending before the Supreme Court. The IBRL moot court found 6-3 in favor of the State of California, causing some concern as to whether the result was an outlier or a hint towards how the Supreme Court may rule.

Apparently, William & Mary is not the only law school considering the question. New York Law School, famous for their annual State of Play conference, held a moot court competition of their own featuring a fact pattern very similar to that of the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case.  We obtained a copy of the bench brief from the case, which was written by NYLS third year law students Andrew Blancato and John Hague for the Charles W. Froessel Intramural Moot Court Competition. 

The decision by Utah Attorney-General Mark Shurtleff to support the game industry side of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA has made him a target in the Beehive State.

The latest person to bash Shurtleff is the failed politician, and Utah’s “common sense conservative” Cherilyn Eagar. Eagar, who was running for Senator in the state as a Republican—and against Shurtleff, before he withdrew from the race—but did not make the final run-off, took to her blog to bash Shurtleff’s decision to oppose the California law.

In the article, entitled “Children Must be Protected from Video Games,” Eagar writes that Shurtleff’s rationale in backing of the game industry could be adapted in order to “logically argue that it is free speech to allow minors to purchase cigarettes or drugs.”

Over the past month, the “pro-family” Eagle Forum attempted (and failed) to lobby Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff into supporting the California side of Schwarzenegger v. EMA, while its founder, Phyllis Schlafly, scribbled out a withering column on the “evil products” and “highly disturbing”  content emerging from the videogame industry. Now another Eagle Forum member is attempting to pin the group’s anti-videogame stance on protecting children.

Last month we told you that the Institute of Bill of Rights Law (IBRL) at William & Mary Law School would offer a mock trial of the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, which is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court on November 2.  Well, the Moot Court held its version of the event over the weekend, and gamers will have to hope that the result does not foreshadow the verdict that SCOTUS eventually returns.

The mock trial included participants such as USA Today’s Joan Biskupic, The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin, the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, University of California, Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemrinsky, Jeffrey Sutton from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkman.

A new Harris Poll finds that a majority of Americans believe the Supreme Court is a necessary branch of the government. Why Harris Poll asked such a silly question, I do not know. The poll also found that two in five Americans (42 percent) said they are not knowledgeable about the Supreme Court confirmation process. Almost three in five (58 percent) Americans said that they are knowledgeable about the process, with 14 percent saying they are very knowledgeable and 44 percent saying they are somewhat knowledgeable. Americans 65 and older (74 percent) and men (71 percent) were more likely to say they were knowledgeable on the subject compared to younger Americans (18-33) and women (both 46 percent).

The research of Iowa State University psychology professors Craig Anderson (pictured, left) and Douglas Gentile (pictured, right), in addition to Rob West and ex-ISU professor Brad Bushman, makes up the bulk of the argument for the California side of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA in the amicus brief (PDF) filed by State Senator Leland Yee earlier this year.

Yee’s brief referenced nine studies from the ISU researchers, while Anderson, Gentile and Bushman also helped in authoring the brief’s Statement on Video Game Violence. Nevertheless, Gentile and Anderson, in an ISU press release trumpeting the pair's achievements, wanted to emphasize that while they contributed scientific “evidence,” they do not necessarily endorse the California law.

The courting of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (pictured) by both sides in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA  U.S. Supreme Court case ended with him signing onto an amicus brief supporting the game industry, where he was joined by fellow attorneys general from Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and Washington.

A disjointed op-ed in Utah’s Standard-Examiner praised Shurtleff’s decision, yet still managed to take some pot shots at the game industry.

Shurtleff stated that he backed the game industry because he was “convinced” that the First Amendment protects games, a point agreed with in the op-ed:

Is it right for the government to freeze speech -- in this case the video games -- because some people are offended by the violence? The answer is no.

Activision Blizzard has thrown its support behind the ESA/EMA in its looming Supreme Court battle related to Schwarzenegger v. EMA (No. 08-1448). The world's largest publisher joins the masses of professionals in the film, music, publishing, advertising, journalism, free speech, creative guilds, software and comic book industries. They join with media-related groups, legal scholars, social science professionals, and 10 state Attorneys General, in the fight for the video game industry.

Activision Blizzard said this morning that it independently filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the existing industry ratings and enforcement efforts were sufficient in keeping mature-rated games out of the hands of children. Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard CEO, issued the following statement on the company's brief:

If you are having trouble keeping track of the number of amicus briefs that have been filed so far in favor of the game industry, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has the answers for you. The trade group representing game publishing companies announced that over 180 leading First Amendment experts, national organizations, non-profits, associations, researchers and social science experts filed amicus briefs on Friday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association/Entertainment Software Association.

All of the briefs had different approaches: some pointed out free speech issues, others pointed out overreach by the state of California and other state's attorneys general said that this law would put an unneeded burden on law enforcement – which have better things to do like catch real criminals. Here is what the ESA's top executive had to say about all these briefs:

In what may initially seem like a stretch, Vindicia, a “leading provider of on-demand strategic billing solutions,” has filed an amicus brief in support of the videogame side in Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

The brief (PDF) makes a bit more sense when put in the context that Vindicia has clients such as Activision Blizzard and Atari. The company stated that the law at the center of the case “substantially impacts Vindicia, its customers, and the consumers they serve… by creating uncertainty regarding the legal status of video game expression.”

Furthermore, the “the Act’s age verification mandate jeopardizes significant modes of online commerce.”

Among Vindicia’s arguments:

Eighty-two scholars and researchers signed their name to a brief voicing opposition to the California law at the center of Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

Noting that the issue now awaiting a Supreme Court ruling is subject to strict scrutiny because it attempts to regulate the sale of games based on content, the scholars’ brief argues that California has neither provided “substantial evidence” that games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors playing them, nor does the state “demonstrate that the restriction will ‘alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.’”

Additionally:

Indeed, California does not offer any reliable evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that playing violent video games causes psychological or neurological harm to minors. California confesses it cannot prove causation, but points to studies that it says show a “correlation” between the two. But the evidence does not even do that.

The Legal Times reports that the states supporting the video game industry's side of the Supreme Court fight include Utah, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Washington, Georgia, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and the wonderful territory of Puerto Rico. You can grab that brief here (Thanks again to our Shoutbox hero BearDogg-X).

The brief was written by Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch and supported by Irell & Manella in Los Angeles. The main argument of states supporting the industry is that the California law is an overreach, against First Amendment freedom, and puts an undue burden on law enforcement, who have better things to do. The brief also points out that the law opens up the possibility of criminals using the defense "video games made me do it."

Update: id Software has filed an amicus brief (PDF) and the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has joined  nine other states that are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the California law. Thanks to all our Shoutbox users (PHX Corp, BearDogg-X, etc.,) for their help today.

Original story: Those supporting the state of California’s attempt to legislate the sale of violent video games to minors got an early start and submitted their amicus briefs on July 19th. Perhaps a bit disconcerting for gamers, those briefs sat unopposed for nearly two months.

But hey, better late than never as today the video game industry saw a flurry of support from all over the country as various people and organizations rushed to meet today’s submission deadline. We’re still waiting for the ECA’s long expected amicus brief but in the meantime, let’s tally up the scores and see which side can brag the most support.

Today is the deadline to file "friend of the court" amicus briefs in the California violent games case going before the U.S. Supreme Court in early November. Some heavy hitters have shown up on both sides of the issue.

On the side of gamers, we have the Motion Picture Association of America, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and a host of publishers, artists and advertisers. More are expected to be filed before the end of business today, including a brief from the Entertainment Consumers Association.

The MPAA brief was joined by AFTRA, SAG, the Directors Guild of America and several other entertainment organizations, and stated in part: