Following today's oral arguments session in the U.S. Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA, representatives from the Entertainment Software Association (they're on the EMA side) held a conference call to discuss how they thought things went. ESA president Michael Gallagher was optimistic, saying, "Today was a historic day, not only for the computer and video game industry, but for the First Amendment." He added, "I think that in court today, you heard every single argument the industry has made, articulated not just by Paul [Smith] ... but by the justices themselves."
"ESA is very, very proud of the work that was done by Paul," Gallagher said. "The argument today was very lively, the justices were very informed and the dialogue clearly established that video games are entitled to the same treatment as movies, music, books and other forms of entertainment."
Jenner and Block counsel of record Paul Smith, who presented the EMA's arguments during today's hearings, was similarly optimistic. He offered his opinion that the representative from California's arguments didn't satisfy the "strict scrutiny" requirements needed to revoke video games' First Amendment protections. He added, "Though there's obviously a great deal of complexity in the whole thing -- and it's very difficult to come away knowing with any sense of confidence where the court's going to come down specifically -- we do feel pretty good about having all of our arguments aired, and getting a lot of traction."
ESA general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow echoed Smith's confidence, saying, "It was gratifying to hear all of the themes we had presented in our papers echoed by one or more justices at various times throughout the day. We feel very confident that our case was heard as thoroughly and carefully as it can be."
"There's really no way to know for sure how this is going to come out," Doroshow said, "but we at least feel good that the best case possible was put forward for the industry and our position."
Reader Comments (33)
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:45PM darkinchworm said
Excellent, I can safely resume camping out to slay Willow Smith.
In-game, I mean.
In-game, I mean.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:46PM sammo21 said
Clarence Thomas rocks.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:25PM The Wicker Man said
@sammo21. At being a sexual deviant and always voting against common sense?
Reply
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:56PM The Joy of Painting w Bob Ross said
@JuicedCardinal
At being the token black dude in the posse, duh. Just take a look at the picture. Old white men in the middle, minorities and women on the outside. There's no way that wasn't intentional.
Reply
At being the token black dude in the posse, duh. Just take a look at the picture. Old white men in the middle, minorities and women on the outside. There's no way that wasn't intentional.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:48PM Texas Spectre said
At least we have Dan Amrich (in drag) on the bench. (Keegan, top right). All kidding aside, it'd be a dark day for the entire entertainment industry if they decide to limit the games industry and have government interference.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:50PM Jesse Walsh said
Thanks for covering this! Seriously... this is a really important issue to people who play video games.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:53PM naginalf said
The Justices kept mentioning that kids are not able to get porn but they can get a game with deplorable violence. What makes them think that a law keeping them from buying the game will be any more effective than the law on porn. The law can do nothing that parental guidance doesn't already account for (and in most cases utterly fails). But something that Smith said about a fine for each copy of the game equaling over a million dollars, really opened my eyes to the real reason for the law, to make money for Cali.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:44PM BananaBoat said
@The Deuce - Not to mention that "won't somebody please think of the children?!" politics are good for getting politicians reelected.
This law was created at the intersection of money, politics, and special interest groups. If it passes, it will be a disgrace.
Reply
This law was created at the intersection of money, politics, and special interest groups. If it passes, it will be a disgrace.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:53PM acefondu said
Nice, great to hear some of the justices were echoing the ESA's claims.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 4:54PM Undying said
This should not have even been an issue.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:11PM Adashofcrazy said
Does anyone know when we can expect to hear a ruling in this case? How long do these things normally last?
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 8:17PM Drakkenfyre said
I was thinking it would be by the end of today.
Then I saw another story and said the ruling was expected June 2011.
Reply
Then I saw another story and said the ruling was expected June 2011.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:21PM naginalf said
Just looking at some of the most recent cases, it tends to last usually 2-3 months, but can last up to 8mo. or more.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:21PM WolfForager said
Flashbacks of Boston Legal.... must stop... oh no...
*grabs a cigar and a glass of scotch*
*grabs a cigar and a glass of scotch*
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:25PM (Unverified) said
@Adashofcrazy They have till June of 2011.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:34PM berzirk said
I love how the only two justices that are smiling are the new ones. The rest of them look like their puppy was run over by a car on the same day their spouse left them. That, and half of them look like they caught the nursing home bus from their facility, to the Supreme Court building. It's a good thing the home wasn't doing an early Thanksgiving dinner today at 10am. The Court would've never been able to hear this case! Old people don't leave the nursing home on turkey and mashed potato days.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 7:35PM berzirk said
@TheTARDIS That was me saying they're really old and the US should have a mandatory retirement age for the Supreme Court. I'd also be strongly in favor of term limits for Congress. My grandfather is 91. He forgets to put his shoes on before he goes outside sometimes. That's OK though, he's retired. Not creating/enforcing laws for the most powerful nation in the world.
Reply
Posted: Nov 3rd 2010 10:00AM TheTARDIS said
@berzirk
Well I'd have to agree with you with mandatory terms for both. But I have to say that there's a huge difference between the age of the Chief Justice, who is 55 and someone who is 91. Most of the Justices are in their 60's or early 70's, and speaking from a personal viewpoint I know many relatives and neighbours who are physically fit and are mentally fully alert in their 70's. Although the court may run into a problem several years from now with regard to a justices health, right now they are fit to hold their positions.
tl;dr They're old, but not THAT old!
Reply
Well I'd have to agree with you with mandatory terms for both. But I have to say that there's a huge difference between the age of the Chief Justice, who is 55 and someone who is 91. Most of the Justices are in their 60's or early 70's, and speaking from a personal viewpoint I know many relatives and neighbours who are physically fit and are mentally fully alert in their 70's. Although the court may run into a problem several years from now with regard to a justices health, right now they are fit to hold their positions.
tl;dr They're old, but not THAT old!
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:58PM Barkley610 said
Release the kagen!!!
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:05PM SystemPatch said
After reading through the transcript in class earlier, I have to say that the justices actually seem to know quite a bit about gaming in general, to the point where I think they know more about it than the "white knights" fighting for this bill. They did try to keep an open mind though, and listened to both sides equally. I feel, what ever the choice they make, it'll be the right one.
After all the political stuff I've put up with today, this has actually put a tiny bit of faith back in me for our government.
After all the political stuff I've put up with today, this has actually put a tiny bit of faith back in me for our government.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:16PM ArtificeDrake formerly known as said
Every time I see John Roberts' face I just want to smack him around...
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 6:27PM The Wicker Man said
In my best Ali G voice, "Look at deese geezers."
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 7:30PM pluupy said
That picture needs some captions. Seriously.
That guy on the far-right...
That guy on the far-right...
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 7:39PM Sam406 said
I'm pleasantly surprised with the transcript, the supreme court seemed very on the ball regarding the issue.
I may just get to eat crow after all, and I'm ok with that.
I may just get to eat crow after all, and I'm ok with that.
Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 8:52PM Walter White said
Darth Vader Ginsberg must think everyone else in the picture has cooties.






