Schwarzenegger v. EMA

[Sachiel]

Entertainment Consumers Association (homepage)

On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the state of California's petition for certiorari (cert) in Schwarzenegger v. EMA , the so-called “violent video game” case. This will be the first time that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on any of the state laws attempting to restrict or ban certain video games. Until now, all such laws have been struck down by lower federal courts as unconstitutional restrictions on Free Speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Court will hear oral arguments on November 2, 2010. At that time, the Court will also review all friends of the Court briefs (amicus briefs) that will put forth additional information for the Court to consider. ECA will be submitting such a brief on behalf of American digital entertainment consumers and will be attaching the gamer petition.

(SOURCE)

Why it Matters to Gamers

The Petition

Video Game Voters.com LEARN MORE

 

[plasmid303]

I have no problem with this (potential) new law. My being a resident of California has no bearing on my opinion, mind you. This law specifically targets anyone attempting to sell extremely violent games to minors. I see no issue with that.

 

[thenammagazine]

I have no problem with this (potential) new law. My being a resident of California has no bearing on my opinion, mind you. This law specifically targets anyone attempting to sell extremely violent games to minors. I see no issue with that.

Like the NRA does any time law makers want to prevent criminals from legally purchasing a firearm, some people chicken little the hell out of ____ like this and would have you think it's the first step to a statewide ban of video games. READ PEOPLE! It's all there.

 

[Biojex]

The people above me are smart. Listen to them.

 

[dominishin]

I hate the ECA.

 

[Kabukiman]

Other than creating a scapegoat and a target for sue-happy individuals, this is a useless law. It should be fought on that basis alone.

 

[Something Sexy]

I do not see any game company changing the game because of some California law.

 

[thenammagazine]

I do not see any game company changing the game because of some California law.

Silly and stupid thing is, when will these groups realize all it does is make the games more appealing. They should've learned that lesson with Tipper and her granny panty brigade when they went after metal in the 80's and made rockstars millionaires over night.

 

[Something Sexy]

Silly and stupid thing is, when will these groups realize all it does is make the games more appealing. They should've learned that lesson with Tipper and her granny panty brigade when they went after metal in the 80's and made rockstars millionaires over night.

Yep! Or maybe that is their plan to feed the economy.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

I have no problem with this (potential) new law. My being a resident of California has no bearing on my opinion, mind you. This law specifically targets anyone attempting to sell extremely violent games to minors. I see no issue with that.

I don't either, but if a minor wants a game badly enough they'll find a way to get it regardless of any laws.

 

[lerath666]

Like the NRA does any time law makers want to prevent criminals from legally purchasing a firearm, some people chicken little the hell out of ____ like this and would have you think it's the first step to a statewide ban of video games. READ PEOPLE! It's all there.

Yes and no. How about this.

This law is No different from the following.

Making it a crime to sell R rated movie tickets to children under the age of 18

Making it a crime to sell books ( or comic books) with Violent sections in them illegal to sell to children under the age of 18.


the law is a dangerous step, BECAUSE it sets a precedent, marking video games as not being wholly protected under the first amendment like other forms of entertainment which are protected forms of free speech.

It's a SMALL step. but it's a DANGEROUS one. this is one of those cases that has the potential to open up other doors, which could eventually lead to government censure on games in a wider arc.

One of the BIGGEST talking points on the push for the ban is the claim that the ESRB is not something that works, which is complete bull____.

The ESRB works fine, and is a far more complex rating system than what we have for film. and while it is not always 100% accurate, when it errs, it errs on the side of caution and gives games a STERNER rating than they might deserve.

an example would be if hollyweird were unsure whiter a film warranted a pg-13 or an R rating, and ALWAYS went with the R just to be safe. A good recent Game example of this is Halo Reach.

The rating system is ALREADY in place, and it works FINE. If some kid's parents do not care enough to take an interest in what their kids are doing, and actually READ THE RATINGS, and the info packets that EVERY RETAIL STORE HAS, then I really doubt that there would be a problem.

as for their not being any penalty for selling a game rated M to a minor, I don't know about where you live, but having worked in Video Game retail, i can assure you there are Several penalties for doing so already.

IF A COMPLAINT IS REGESTERED
then the ESRB can and will fine the offending company, and the employee who made the sale, and you can bet the employee will loose their job for doing so.

In other words, do you REALLY want the government TELLING you what is and is not appropriate for your children to watch, or do you want to be an adult and make Big boy/girl decisions for yourself.

any one who is at all an avid gamer should go here, read hat Stan 9the man) Lee has to say about this.

https://videogamevoters.org/

stan's Letter
https://videogamevoters.org/StanLee

a much better breakdown of what's at stake here
https://videogamevoters.org/scotus/why-it-matters


Ben Crowshaw's comments on this
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/HLsOilplBxk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/HLsOilplBxk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


this isn't chicken-littleing, sky-is-falling fear. this is something that starts small, that could easily escalate to a huge problem if allowed to go unchecked.

 

[ed-209]

the consoles even have rating controls that can be set by the parents to restrict the playing of rated games so why should we pass this choice off to our government to dictate? once a freedom is given up, it won't be easy to get back. it is my understanding that this law would deem what games are allowed to even be sold in stores and would effectively control the content of future games released in CA and any states that follow suit. much in the same way certain games are denied release in australia (i.e. aliens vs predator). in effect, we'd be handing over control to the govenment to regulate what is available in order to protect the young influential minds. isn't that what a parent's responsibility is? sounds like people are making excuses to shirk their responsibility and handing over control of our choices to the government in the process. bad idea.

 

[Sachiel]

More info:

https://videogamevoters.org/pages/learn

https://videogamevoters.org/index.php/pages/day_of_action

The people above me are smart. Listen to them.

If I listen to anyone, it will be the smart developers who actually work on these games.

If you are a video gamer, I don't see how you could support this regulation.

 

[plasmid303]

First, I want to be completely clear about my stance on this topic as being neutral. I see the points and benefits brought up by both arguing parties.

Censoring artistic expression is a stickler that is brought up a lot, but the new law is not stopping said expression from being made, nor is it stopping it from being sold or preventing a person from even experiencing it. It is merely underlining that parental consent is required for minors to play. The proposed law isn't claiming that games are not a form of speech, art nor is it labeling them outright as obscenities. It is looking for an exception which allows speech that is obscene to be restricted to minors as it will be harmful to them.

I understand the fears that this statute could potentially open a door to further government control over our beloved medium, but the passing of this law doesn't automatically lead to the implementation of others, and California has not expressed any desire for it to go down that route. Therefore your problem isn't with this law, but what laws may follow. If that is the case, argue against the laws that follow, if they follow, and don't impede the efforts of this law. As for the precedent that this law would allow people to use video games as a defense, the defendant would still need to produce evidence that games affected his behavior, whether or not the government of California thinks games are harming minors.

 

[thenammagazine]

this isn't chicken-littleing, sky-is-falling fear. this is something that starts small, that could easily escalate to a huge problem if allowed to go unchecked.

I'm not gonna quote your novella.

A kid strolls into Gamestop and drops the latest Mature rated game on the counter and a C-note. The cashier rings him up and lets him leave with the game. Who's to blame? The kid should know better than to buy a game that he's not allowed to own. The parents will "poor kid" the child as an excuse for their lack of instilling values into their child - aka failed parenting. Along the same lines, the cashier will blame the store and the kids's parents. "Ain't my fault! We shouldn't even be selling it or letting kids in!" No responsibility. But it's not his fault, it's his parents' fault for not instilling values.

Bottom line, it is parents' responsibility to decide what is appropriate for their children. However, 99.9% of parents are failures. My wife's a teacher and sees it every day. Parents blaming teachers for kids not turning in assignments or studying (because teachers are supposed to simultaneously follow all thirty kids in 6 classes home at night). So what do the parents do? Hey, get the school to lower standards and the politicians to blame the teachers for the low scores and high drop-out rates. Watching all the trash on Mtv just reinforces this. Or the douchy entitlement ____ going on in this very forum. I have to explain this ____ to my daughter DAILY, that "those kids" can act like that because their parents don't give a ____. Now... that said, if the parents can't take care of their own children, that leaves the government.

 

[lerath666]

I'm not gonna quote your novella.

A kid strolls into Gamestop and drops the latest Mature rated game on the counter and a C-note. The cashier rings him up and lets him leave with the game. Who's to blame? The kid should know better than to buy a game that he's not allowed to own. The parents will "poor kid" the child as an excuse for their lack of instilling values into their child - aka failed parenting. Along the same lines, the cashier will blame the store and the kids's parents. "Ain't my fault! We shouldn't even be selling it or letting kids in!" No responsibility. But it's not his fault, it's his parents' fault for not instilling values.

Bottom line, it is parents' responsibility to decide what is appropriate for their children. However, 99.9% of parents are failures. My wife's a teacher and sees it every day. Parents blaming teachers for kids not turning in assignments or studying (because teachers are supposed to simultaneously follow all thirty kids in 6 classes home at night). So what do the parents do? Hey, get the school to lower standards and the politicians to blame the teachers for the low scores and high drop-out rates. Watching all the trash on Mtv just reinforces this. Or the douchy entitlement ____ going on in this very forum. I have to explain this ____ to my daughter DAILY, that "those kids" can act like that because their parents don't give a ____. Now... that said, if the parents can't take care of their own children, that leaves the government.

Using Gamestop in your first example.

Gamestop's answer:
Employee is fired. Happened to a guy While i was working there, and is STANDARD store policy. In addition, f the ESRB gets involved, Gamestop can be fined, however, terminating the employee is sufficient.

I agree with you that it should be the responsibility of the parents to do what needs to be done ( IE police their own kids). I myself grew up in a household where i was not ALLOWED to go see any movie not rated G until after my parents had seen it first. Theater, or at home.


now, here is another thing to consider about this law.


Lets assume that it passes.
Lets assume that EVERY state adopts this law, and it becomes a law on a federal level even.
Now, Pretend your a BIG CEO of a company that sells video games.
This law is a potential headache. Why? because, like in your example, it happens. people are either negligent, or they make mistakes. Take drunk driving. even with all the big whoo-ha made over it, people still do it.
So we know that people WILL eventually break this law, because it can be broken by being lazy, or making a bad judgment call. Not to mention the people who take advantage of this law to sue you in civil court.
This means Costs in legal fines, plus time to train new personnel when the idiots are fired, plus the general legal trouble.
So what do you do to avoid this?

Simple answer. you stop selling M-rated games.
No M-rated games, No risk of selling it to a minor.

as a developer, if you know your game is not going to be carried in stores if it carries an M rating, then you're not going to develop as many games that carry an M rating are you?
Retailers ALREADY don't stock AO rated games, take a look at how many of those there are ( hint, it's not alot) so imagine what that might do to the future of gaming.
Not to mention it's potential back-door censorship.

Look I believe that people NEED to be held accountable for their actions, but not EVERYTHING needs to be written into law. ESPECIALLY when there are business policies already in place that do the same thing that this law wants to do.

 

[thenammagazine]

I don't think it'll do anything more than the Parental Advisory label did for the record industry. And that was pushed a hell of a lot more than this. The furthest it goes is showing ID to purchase mature games and I'm cool with that. I think this teemu-scale paranoia about a "Big Brother" backdoor type conspiracy just isn't warranted here.

If I'm a big CEO of a videogame company, this law poses absolutely no headache at all. Again, we've seen what this does. It brings unnecessary attention to whatever's being targeted. You really want to hurt the industry, get kids to stop wanting these types of games. Get kids to stop asking for them for Christmas/Birthdays, etc., and parents to stop buying them. Passing up a videogame on the shelf does more damage than this Tipper Gore-esque BS. Bad publicity is still publicity and as I said before, made millionaires overnight. So yeah, as a CEO, bring that ____ on!

 

[lerath666]

well, if it passes ( which, to be honest, i doubt it will) We'll see.

 

[Deak Starkiller]

I don't see it as a big deal, as long as it doesn't snowball into other ____. Kids will find a way, I know I did. But I agree with NAM. All of this starts at home, parents are the key.

 

[thenammagazine]

well, if it passes ( which, to be honest, i doubt it will) We'll see.

It likely won't. The worst thing about California democrats, and the main reason Schwarzenegger's bailing back to Hollywood, is that they can't even agree on something amongst themselves.