The Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear the American Needle v. NFL case today and a decision could have an impact on gamers.

The crux of the case has American Needle contending that the NFL’s exclusive apparel agreement with Reebok limits competition and is a violation of the Sherman Act, in part because the NFL's (consisting of 32 privately-owned teams) and NFL Properties' (equally-owned by all 32 teams) agreement with Reebok does not allow for American Needle to negotiate apparel deals with individual NFL teams.

It’s also argued that the exclusive contract with Reebok has led to higher prices for consumers.

The NFL claims that it acts as a single entity, even though it is comprised of numerous teams.

LawsofPlay offers some opinions on the case and what might happen once a ruling comes down.

On the NFL as a single entity:

While there are a number of good reasons to maintain the NFL’s current licensing arrangements, it does not seem to me that the long history of competition between NFL teams–including ticket sales and media rights–supports the idea that the NFL should be considered a single entity.

Things could get weird in the videogame world if the NFL loses the case. LawsofPlay serves up this scenario:

Rather than appealing to a single business or organization, such as the NFLP, publishers would be able to negotiate with individual teams.  While this could lead to more competition in the sports gaming markets, it could also lead to really wonky arrangements–imagine EA releasing an NFL game with 20 NFL teams and a dozen or so fantasy teams to round out the roster while 2K releases a game with the 12 NFL teams missing from EA’s game and a handful of its own fantasy teams.

Additionally:

…publishers could consider the cost to license individual marks and opt only to enter into agreements with the teams that seemed economically “worth it.”  After all, it is possible that a publisher does not derive as much value from including the Lions in their game as they do from including the Packers.

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.

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 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.

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.

California's petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in regard to its 2005 video game law is now available online.

The petition asks the Court to consider two key questions:

1. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?

2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

Grab your copy here (PDF).

For the first time ever, the United States Supreme Court will consider a case involving a restriction against the purchase of violent video games by minors.

GamePolitics has just received the news by way of a press release from the office of California State Senator Leland Yee (D). It was Yee who sponsored the contested video game law as an Assemblyman in 2005. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in October, 2005, triggering a court battle with between the state and the video game industry which will now extend to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law, scheduled to take effect January 1st, 2006, never became effective due to an injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in December, 2005. Judge Whyte would eventually go on to permanently enjoin the law in August of 2007, ruling it unconstitutional. Gov. Schwarzenegger, however, ordered an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court.

In February of this year, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld Judge Whyte's ruling, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as California's last option, an option that Gov. Schwarzenegger has now chosen to exercise. Schwarzenegger's comments are contained in the press release:

I signed this important measure to ensure parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. By prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children under the age of 18 and requiring these games to be clearly labeled, this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids. I will continue to vigorously defend this law and protect the well-being of California’s kids.

For his part, Yee, a child psychologist by trade, said:

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court – which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games – will accept our appeal...  

 

Passing this law was not easy and thus we should not expect the court proceedings to be any different. The multi-billion dollar video game industry relies on the revenue generated by the sales of these extremely violent games to children; thus they have the desire and resources to fight this cause at every turn.  Despite their high-priced lobbyists, they were unsuccessful in the Legislature and despite their high-priced lawyers, I am hopeful they will inevitably face the same fate in the courts.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), whose office will handle the SCOTUS appeal, added:

California’s children are exposed everyday to video games that glamorize killing sprees, torture and sexual assault. In the face of this brutal violence, I am petitioning the Supreme Court to allow the state to enforce its reasonable ban on violent video game sales and rentals to minors.

The A.G.'s office has initiated the appeal by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. As GamePolitics readers may recall from the recent Jack Thompson appeal, the Supreme Court process dictates that the justices as a group will consider California's petition in private conference at a later date. If four of the nine justices vote to grant California's petition, the case will advance to the filing of briefs. Otherwise, the appeal will end.