A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a disabled gamer against Sony Corporation of America, Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Online Entertainment which alleged that the defendants denied access to their services for people with disabilities.

The suit was originally filed by plaintiff Alexander Stern in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California last October. The dismissal notice (PDF) was handed down on February 8 of this year.

Stern had argued that, “his visual processing impairments prevent him from fully enjoying the video games manufactured by Sony, some of which are played on gaming systems with internet connections through which players in different locations can communicate and play with or against one another.”

The court noted that, “According to the Ninth Circuit, to prevail on an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Title III discrimination claim, “the plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of her disability.”

In its ruling, the court stated, in reference to point number 2 above, that Sony is not a “place of public accommodation” and was “therefore not liable for violating Title III of the ADA.”


|Via The Hollywood Reporter|

Women in Games International (WIGI), formerly a part of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), has gone off on its own and will now operate as an independent organization.

The group was formed in 2005 to support the “the inclusion and advancement of women in the game industry.” Belinda Van Sickle has been named the organization’s President and CEO. Additionally, Noelle Hunt-Bennett will act as Secretary while Krissie Franco will act as Treasurer and CFO.

Van Sickle offered:

Our focus for 2010 is on rejuvenating the organization, offering immediate and tangible value to members seeking jobs, career development and networking opportunities. Our Los Angeles and San Francisco chapters have already lined up some wonderful partnerships to get WIGI off to a great start in 2010 and we hope that they will serve as models for other chapters in this pivotal year of our new mission.

WIGI will sponsor an industry mixer at this year’s Game Developer Conference. The event takes place on March 10.

A computer game simulation in use at the Army School for Command Preparation trains users how to manage dangerous situations in hostile environments.

UrbanSim was created for the Army by the University of Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies in response to a call for “SimCity for soldiers” writes The Atlantic. The training tool drops pairs of trainees into a virtual replication of the Iraqi city Al-Hamra’, and kicks off with 25.0 percent of the city's residents supporting coalition forces, 35.0 neutral and 40.0 percent against. Percentages will change as the trainees advance throughout their 15 allotted turns.

The sim’s worst player so far ended up with 70.0 percent of the town against him. As project manager Matthew Bosack explained, “He thought the only way to increase civil security was to go bust down people’s doors.”

The Institute is already working on a simulation set inside Afghanistan, which it hopes to have ready in the next few motnhs.


|Via Kotaku. Thanks Andrew|

Created by a dozen Cal State San Bernardino students, Vector Force is now available on the Xbox Live Marketplace.

The arcade-styled shooter took two years to create and involved over a dozen students in all, who worked on the project under the tutelage of Professors Art Concepcion and David Turner. Student Mark Chapman took on the role of the game's designer.

Concepcion likened the game to “a stamp of legitimacy of our computer systems game development program."

He added:

If students are allowed to choose the project and be involved in the design and decision of what the project will do, they will rise to the challenge of hard work.

Vector Force can be purchased for 80 Microsoft points. A demo is also available.

Cal State San Bernardino students are already at work on their next task, a videogame called Mythic that is being developed in conjunction with students and faculty from Rim of the World High School and Riverside Community College. A $300,000 National Science Foundation grant is funding the new project.

Armed with a BB gun, a 14-year old California boy stole a pair of bicycles and after being apprehended reportedly told deputies that he felt like he was playing a real-world version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Bakers Field Now reports that the minor was arrested by Wasco police officers after a brief chase, which he compared to an episode of Cops. He told officers that he considered “shooting the deputy in the eye,” but was scared that he would be shot in return if he missed. According to a newscast, officers also attempted to taser the boy, with “little effect.”

No word on how the boy was able to manage fleeing with two stolen bicycles.

Thanks Jack!

Erik Estavillo has outdone himself once again, this time subpoenaing a pair of rappers to testify at his civil lawsuit against Sony Computer Entertainment America over his banning from the PlayStation Network.

Those to be summoned are Louise Amanda Harman, better known as Lady Sovereign (pictured left), and Anthony Henderson (aka Krayzie Bone) of the group Bone, Thugs & Harmony. The pair were subpoenaed because Estavillo desires to, “highlight how rappers are not censored/banned/or punished for ‘cussing/trash talking’ on private property i.e. clubs, concerts, music channels/events or award ceremonies.”

Estavillo previously promised to be done with filing lawsuits. Today he indicated that these would be the last of his subpoenas. Musicians, actresses and billionaire titans of industry around the globe can now breathe a little more easily.

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.

The Media Coalition, a free speech defense trade group has criticized California's Supreme Court appeal of a lower court decision striking down its violent video game law as unconstitutional.

Media Coalition Executive Director David Horowitz said in a statement:

We are very disappointed that the California Governor and Attorney General have decided to spend the state’s scarce resources to ask the Supreme Court to carve out a new exception to the First Amendment.

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier declined the state’s invitation to create a new class of speech outside of the First Amendment. This is settled law. In recent years, in addition to California, similar laws in Indianapolis, Michigan, Illinois, St. Louis County, Minnesota, and Washington attempted to ban video games with certain violent content were uniformly found unconstitutional.

Media Coalition members include video game industry trade groups the Entertainment Software Association (game publishers) and Entertainment Merchants Association* (game retailers). It was these two entities which originally brought suit against the California law in 2005.

The Entertainment Consumers Association is also a Media Coalition member.

* Prior to its 2006 merger with the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, the Entertainment Merchants Association was known as the Video Software Dealers Association, and the California case continues as VSDA v. Schwarzenegger.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.

Media watchdog group the Parents Television Council has applauded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal court decision striking down California's 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional.

While video game industry lobbyists and video game consumer group the Entertainment Consumers Association criticized Schwarzenegger's decision, PTC President Tim Winter (left) praised the California appeal in a press release:

There should be no question that unaccompanied minors should be kept from purchasing adult video games that research has shown can be harmful to them, just like there are reasonable restrictions on other products that can cause them harm. This California law was designed to enforce the video game industry’s own voluntary retail guidelines... Our own research found that video game retailers sell M-rated video games to minors 36% of the time.  Clearly, this law is needed...

The [video game] industry doesn’t follow its own rules, and they don’t want a consequence for violating them.  Video game retailers, developers and publishers actually profit when their age restriction policy is ignored.  This creates an inherent and unworkable conflict of interest.

We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and rule in favor of the families and children that this California law was intended to protect.

Winter is referring to the PTC's 2008 secret shopper survey, which found that underage buyers were successful at purchasing M-rated games 36% of the time. A survey released by the Federal Trade Commission earlier in 2008 found only a 20% success rate for underage buyers.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.

Reactions continue to come in following today's decision by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to appeal a pair of federal court rulings which previously held that the state's 2005 violent video game law is unconstitutional.

Hal Halpin, President of the Entertainment Consumers Association, issued a statement moments ago on the California appeal:

I was disheartened to hear that Governor Schwarzenegger is petitioning the Supreme Court over labeling and sales of video games, especially given the fact that nine similar pieces of legislation have been overturned on First Amendment grounds, costing the respective cities and states much-needed taxpayer funds.

 

Coupled with California’s $21B economic crisis and the fact that the Governor is about to lay off teachers en masse, it’s shocking to the conscience. This was a frivolous political football back when the state had money to burn. Now it’s out-and-out irresponsibly politicized.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.

As GamePolitics has reported, California is appealing the constitutionality of its 2005 video game law to the U.S. Supreme Court. Reaction by the video game industry has been both swift and blunt.

Entertainment Software Association CEO Michael Gallagher issued a statement criticizing California's decision to petition the Supreme Court:

California’s citizens should see this for what it is—a complete waste of the state’s time and resources. California is facing a $21 billion budget shortfall coupled with high
unemployment and home foreclosure rates. Rather than focus on these very real problems, Governor Schwarzenegger has recklessly decided to pursue wasteful, misguided and pointless litigation.  

We are confident that this appeal will meet the same fate as the State’s previous failed efforts to regulate what courts around the country have uniformly held to be expression that is fully protected by the First Amendment. California’s taxpayers would be better served by empowering parents and supporting the ESRB rating system.

Meanwhile, Sean Bersell (left), VP of Public Affairs for the Entertainment Merchants Association, forwarded a statement to GP:

It boggles the mind that, on a day when the state of California finds itself in the worst fiscal crisis it has ever faced and is considering massive layoffs of teachers and cuts to public services, the state would choose to waste tens of thousands of dollars on pursuing this frivolous appeal.

This law was found by two lower courts, relying on long-established legal precedents, to be unconstitutional as an infringement of the First Amendment. There have been eight similar laws enacted around the nation this decade and every single one has been found unconstitutional on similar grounds. There is no reason to expect a different outcome in the Supreme Court.

So far, this case has cost the state of California approximately $400,000 just in legal fees and court costs that it has had to pay the plaintiffs. This doesn’t even include the state’s legal fees and costs. And if this appeal is unsuccessful, as it will be in all likelihood, the state will owe the plaintiffs even more in legal fees and court costs.

The taxpayers of California should demand that their elected officials stop wasting precious tax dollars on this quixotic quest.

Both the ESA and the EMA (under its former name VSDA) are parties in the California case. The EMA maintains a web page listing background on VSDA v. Schwarzenegger.