It's been a long road for the California bill backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that seeks to keep violent video games from being sold to minors. But the end is finally in sight: The Entertainment Consumer Association has announced that the case, known as Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association), will go before US Supreme Court on November 2.
As an outside party, the ECA will submit an amicus brief in the case and has set up a website for a petition and more information about the pending arguments. So far, lower courts have judged the proposed law, which would set up legal rules and penalties against selling violent video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. Of course, this time around, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, so any decision in favor of the bill would overturn previous rulings in lesser courts. Take that, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!
Oral arguments in the case begin November 2, and the judges should have a decision soon after that. This will be the first time the Supreme Court looks at video games and the First Amendment, so a ruling either way should be pretty historic.
Reader Comments (66)
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 11:21AM steven1 said
Arnie wants to get rid of the little kids on xbox live once and for all. I'm glad I'm 18.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 11:35AM kives343 said
This is really a lot bigger then can minors but M-rated games. This law will be used as a reference to future laws. If this becomes law then video-games can be regulated by the government in anyway they see fit because they will refer to this ruling for rulings on other laws. So this is a lot bigger I mean do you want the government out right banning games because they contain violence, sex, and drug use? No and this is the parents responsibility to control what there kids play.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 12:19PM TheUndyingWanderer said
I think most of the people here are posting reasonable and rational explanations on why passing this would be unconstitutional. It's actually not very hard to see the flaws in this bill. I personally think it's just a waste of time, this really is a huge waste of time. How was this able to even go on schedule? The Supreme Court? Am I the only one thinking this? I don't think you can properly justify this bill with a legitimate response. We need to put everything into law in order to stop someone doing something a certain group of people find immoral. Don't parents check in with their kids once in a while? When their kid get home from the store or school don't they ask about their day? Can't they tell when they're lying and if they can't it's pretty easy to just hear the sounds of gun fire or screaming without asking yourself "I wontder what he/she bought with the 60 something dollars I gave him/her." This is hilarious!
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 12:21PM TheUndyingWanderer said
*DO we need to put everything into law in order to stop someone from doing something a certain group of people find immoral*
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 12:28PM benheck said
Parents. Don't. Care. As long as something shuts up little Jimmy, they are fine with it. Also, many are too cheap to hire babysitters, which probably explains the 5 years olds running around when I watched Piranha 3D last week (not a good "bad" movie BTW)
This law only hurts the game industry and retailers. Arnold and other "progressives" can rally against "evil rich corporations" all they want but most of the people in the industry make normal salaries, work long hours and many of them WORK in California.
And it's a total double standard of course too. For instance, if a bunch of Mormons in Utah tried to pass legislation banning kids from seeing R-rated movies using a definition of decency as incredibly broad as this law, you'd have everyone in Hollywood driving up their with pitchforks handed out by the ACLU.
The vast majority of the world is adults - why is every law passed "for the children?"
This law only hurts the game industry and retailers. Arnold and other "progressives" can rally against "evil rich corporations" all they want but most of the people in the industry make normal salaries, work long hours and many of them WORK in California.
And it's a total double standard of course too. For instance, if a bunch of Mormons in Utah tried to pass legislation banning kids from seeing R-rated movies using a definition of decency as incredibly broad as this law, you'd have everyone in Hollywood driving up their with pitchforks handed out by the ACLU.
The vast majority of the world is adults - why is every law passed "for the children?"
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 12:46PM HappyFunBall said
The ECA is a sham organization. They think an internet petition is going to influence the Supreme Court?
/facepalm
/facepalm
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 1:14PM oJMan240o said
@HappyFunBall
No, no one thinks they do anything and you're an idiot if you think they do.
*facepalm for your utter ignorance*
It shows support douche bag. It's not about whether or not it's going to do anything it's about showing you support the industry no matter what the outcome of the case is.
Reply
No, no one thinks they do anything and you're an idiot if you think they do.
*facepalm for your utter ignorance*
It shows support douche bag. It's not about whether or not it's going to do anything it's about showing you support the industry no matter what the outcome of the case is.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 3:38PM HappyFunBall said
@GenMan:
Yeah, so you can automatically be opted-in to receive their newsletter spam.
The ECA has done nothing that's pro-consumer. In fact, they've recently been charging members that have cancelled. And to make it worse, they refuse to credit back your card, they make you wait for a check in the mail. Way to be pro-consumer.
Hal Halpin is nothing but a money grubbing nutjob, and this is his way of getting more suckers to join and pay him money.
@oJMan240o:
It doesn't matter if it shows support. The Supreme Court doesn't rule based on popular opinion. They rule based on law. A worthless internet petition will do *nothing* to help this case.
Reply
Yeah, so you can automatically be opted-in to receive their newsletter spam.
The ECA has done nothing that's pro-consumer. In fact, they've recently been charging members that have cancelled. And to make it worse, they refuse to credit back your card, they make you wait for a check in the mail. Way to be pro-consumer.
Hal Halpin is nothing but a money grubbing nutjob, and this is his way of getting more suckers to join and pay him money.
@oJMan240o:
It doesn't matter if it shows support. The Supreme Court doesn't rule based on popular opinion. They rule based on law. A worthless internet petition will do *nothing* to help this case.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 2:01PM GenMan said
I find it a bit hypocritical for Gov. Schwarzenegger to be bringing a case to the Supreme Court about violent video games and having appeared in one of the most violent movies of the last decade in the same year.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 3:55PM golobulus said
@Monkey D Luffy was that too much? it's true though.
there's no scientific evidence to prove that violent video games are more influential than violent movies, music, literature, etc...
there's no possible way to prove it.
yo. maybe i should move to cali, where the biggest problem is "violent video" games being sold to minors.
there's no scientific evidence to prove that violent video games are more influential than violent movies, music, literature, etc...
there's no possible way to prove it.
yo. maybe i should move to cali, where the biggest problem is "violent video" games being sold to minors.
Posted: Aug 27th 2010 9:39PM KFelon said
Holy shit, the ECA is doing something useful with all that money it got from renewing cancelled memberships...
Posted: Aug 28th 2010 1:15PM Urmomlikesme said
Get to the choppa!'
Posted: Sep 14th 2010 3:54AM darthinfamous said
If you think 72% of patents are stupid and you don't want the government to regulate video games, sign the petition put forth by the ECA and protect your first amendment rights.
http://theeca.com/schwarzeneggervema
http://theeca.com/schwarzeneggervema





