Posted By: fastlane69
The USA vs. Video Games - 07/15/10 00:24
This is a transcript from the Game_Edu listserve. Susan points out a petition. Dan points out the amicus. And my reply (still awaiting reply) is above it all.
It seems that the course of action will be the amicus being submitted. Hence, if any of you are associated with ANY organizations or institutions that might want to or can submit an amicus, then get on it. However, while the petition may have no legal weight, it carries weight all the same. The amicus are the rational reasons why; the petition will represent the emotional reasons why we believe the court should rule against Cali.
This is it. This is the last level. It's do or die here in the States for Video Games.
-----------------------------------------------
As Susan points out, the Supreme Court is the “Boss” in the game of Legal Wrangling and we need to put all our skills learned in the other levels (like the Leland level, the Thompson level (that one was tough), the State vs. levels, etc) in order to win.
Point is if a petition isn’t the way to action, then what is, how do we do it, and when do we start!
If our trust “Sword of Petition +1000” won’t cut it, then what do we need?
Less words; more action!
Or
Less words; more video games!
Sincerely,
Ricardo Rademacher, PhD
Futur-E-Scape, LLC founder
http://www.TheVniversity.com
From: game_edu-bounces@igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces@igda.org] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:57 PM
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Support Free Speech and Protect Video Games
To be fair, there's a couple of things about this case.
a) the prevailing view among legal scholars I've discussed this with (and one that I agree on as well), is that the Supreme Court accepted the case in order to put to rest these kinds of cases nationwide (rather than limiting it just to the 9th Circuit) and is likely to rule in favor of the EMA. The court recently held 8-1 in United States v. Stevens that restrictions on graphic depictions of animal cruelty were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment (and the dissent was on technical grounds); the court is likely to continue to extend that same view to the EMA case.
b) the petition, while an interesting exercise, is not likely to have any legal effect on the court's decision, as they are ruling based on constitutional interpretation, not public opinion. I believe that several industry groups are preparing amicus briefs, including IGDA. These are the ones that will be very important to support.
c) the court may decide to rule narrowly in their decision. They could restrict their opinion only to discussing sales to minors; or they could go as broad as to categorically protect all game sales. It's really up in the air as to how important the decision will be in the long run.
By the way, if anyone is going to be attending PAX this September, I have a panel on legal issues that will be discussing the case in significantly more detail (but aimed at laypersons, not lawyers). Feel free to email me offlist for more information.
-Dan
On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Susan Gold wrote:
Although this is only open to American gamers, I thought it might be a good idea to distribute as widely as possible. Apologies to those that cannot sign.
For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.
It only takes a few seconds to speak out, http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781.
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.
Join others in signing The Gamer Petition, http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781.
It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.
Susan
--
Susan Gold
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom!
- J. G. Ballard
It seems that the course of action will be the amicus being submitted. Hence, if any of you are associated with ANY organizations or institutions that might want to or can submit an amicus, then get on it. However, while the petition may have no legal weight, it carries weight all the same. The amicus are the rational reasons why; the petition will represent the emotional reasons why we believe the court should rule against Cali.
This is it. This is the last level. It's do or die here in the States for Video Games.
-----------------------------------------------
As Susan points out, the Supreme Court is the “Boss” in the game of Legal Wrangling and we need to put all our skills learned in the other levels (like the Leland level, the Thompson level (that one was tough), the State vs. levels, etc) in order to win.
Point is if a petition isn’t the way to action, then what is, how do we do it, and when do we start!
If our trust “Sword of Petition +1000” won’t cut it, then what do we need?
Less words; more action!
Or
Less words; more video games!
Sincerely,
Ricardo Rademacher, PhD
Futur-E-Scape, LLC founder
http://www.TheVniversity.com
From: game_edu-bounces@igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces@igda.org] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:57 PM
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv
Subject: Re: [game_edu] Support Free Speech and Protect Video Games
To be fair, there's a couple of things about this case.
a) the prevailing view among legal scholars I've discussed this with (and one that I agree on as well), is that the Supreme Court accepted the case in order to put to rest these kinds of cases nationwide (rather than limiting it just to the 9th Circuit) and is likely to rule in favor of the EMA. The court recently held 8-1 in United States v. Stevens that restrictions on graphic depictions of animal cruelty were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment (and the dissent was on technical grounds); the court is likely to continue to extend that same view to the EMA case.
b) the petition, while an interesting exercise, is not likely to have any legal effect on the court's decision, as they are ruling based on constitutional interpretation, not public opinion. I believe that several industry groups are preparing amicus briefs, including IGDA. These are the ones that will be very important to support.
c) the court may decide to rule narrowly in their decision. They could restrict their opinion only to discussing sales to minors; or they could go as broad as to categorically protect all game sales. It's really up in the air as to how important the decision will be in the long run.
By the way, if anyone is going to be attending PAX this September, I have a panel on legal issues that will be discussing the case in significantly more detail (but aimed at laypersons, not lawyers). Feel free to email me offlist for more information.
-Dan
On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Susan Gold wrote:
Although this is only open to American gamers, I thought it might be a good idea to distribute as widely as possible. Apologies to those that cannot sign.
For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.
It only takes a few seconds to speak out, http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781.
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.
Join others in signing The Gamer Petition, http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781.
It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.
Susan
--
Susan Gold
In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom!
- J. G. Ballard
This is America for chrissakes. Isn't expression our thing?