Joystiq

California out nearly $2 million on failed video game legislation

Jordan Mallory — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:15:00 EST

When California agreed to foot the Entertainment Software Association's $950,000 legal bill accrued during its deconstruction of Brown v. EMA, we estimated the state's cumulative payout to the ESA at around $1,327,000. Once you factor in the state's own legal costs, however, California's total payout for attempting to regulate the sale of violent games to minors rings up at a cool $1.8 million, according to The Sacramento Bee.

Billable hours accrued by lawyers working for the state add an estimated $500,000 to the failed legislation's price tag, which has been slowly growing since the state decided to appeal the bill's initial injunction way back in 2007. Considering that California's budget deficit is projected to reach somewhere around $22 billion this year, two million bucks doesn't seem like all that much in comparison. It's like tossing a box of matches into a burning building: What are you gonna do, set it more on fire?

California out nearly $2 million on failed video game legislation originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

California to pay ESA $950,000 over failed game bill

Alexander Sliwinski — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:00:00 EST

The State of California has agreed to reimburse the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) $950,000 in legal fees for fighting Brown v. EMA up to the Supreme Court. The state must have brought in its top negotiators to get the original request for $1.1 million reduced. Including reimbursements for the 2008 case, which the state already paid, California has dished out more than $1,327,000 to ESA.

"Senator Yee and Governor Schwarzenegger wasted more than $1 million in taxpayer funds at a time when Californians could ill afford it," said Mike Gallagher, president and CEO of ESA. "However we feel strongly that some of these funds should be used to improve services for California's youth."

The ESA stated it would donate a portion of the proceeds from the reimbursement to "develop after-school educational programs for underserved communities in Oakland and Sacramento." The trade association's new charitable education initiative will begin in the spring and will "harness young peoples' natural passion for playing and making video games and connect them to the development of critical 21st century job skills."

States, seriously, stop it.

California to pay ESA $950,000 over failed game bill originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA wants $1.1 million reimbursement from California for SCOTUS battle

Alexander Sliwinski — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:00 EST

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has filed for a $1.1 million reimbursement for attorneys' fees from the State of California for fighting Brown v. EMA.

The ESA's argument for reimbursement: "California persisted in defending a law that Plaintiffs warned the Legislature was unconstitutional before it was passed; that was previously found to be unconstitutional by the district court and a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit; and that is similar to at least eight other laws invalidated as unconstitutional prior to the time that California sought certiorari in this case."

If only California had heeded the ESA's warning after it publicly posted the $282,794 reimbursement check for legal fees it received from the state, following a lower court's decision back in 2008.

Continue reading ESA wants $1.1 million reimbursement from California for SCOTUS battle

ESA wants $1.1 million reimbursement from California for SCOTUS battle originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

Mark Methenitis — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:45:00 EST

Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

I believe I likely owe you an apology. LGJ should have covered this decision the day it was issued, but unfortunately, sometimes clients have to come first. So here we are, a few days after the decision, and the topic has been covered in great detail. I have read the decision, but have largely avoided other coverage of the case so that I could give you my opinion without being impacted by other analysis. Since I imagine most coverage has largely been focused on the majority opinion alone, I will also be discussing the concurring and dissenting opinions. As always, this is simply my opinion on the decision, and to that end, there is some room for people to disagree.

This was, in short, about the best possible outcome, both for the game industry and for the public at large, that could have been expected. It was also an opinion that was the most consistent with existing case law and contemporary First Amendment legal theory. The most important aspect to this case was the court stating fairly unequivocally that new and different forms of media shouldn't be treated any differently simply because they are new and different forms of media. Ultimately, obscene content is obscene content, and though some media may have an easier time crossing the line than others, that doesn't mean the line moves.

Continue reading LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Utah rep won't continue pursuing game legislation after SCOTUS decision

JC Fletcher — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:00:00 EST

Following the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a California law rendering the sale of violent video games to minors illegal, a Utah politician has pledged not to continue pushing for a similar law in his own state. Since 2007, Representative Michael Morley has been in support of a law drafted by Jack Thompson, passed in Utah's legislature in 2008, that would allow parents to sue retailers for false advertising if they sold mature-rated games to children.

Morley is still in support of that bill, but recognized that continued efforts to make it law would likely be fruitless. "It's not on my radar to fight that fight," he told the Deseret News. In the bill's defense, though, he told the paper that his bill was designed to facilitate parental lawsuits, and not impose a fine as the proposed California law would have.

[Image: NMA]

Utah rep won't continue pursuing game legislation after SCOTUS decision originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

NMA TV breaks down the Supreme Court game ruling

JC Fletcher — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:00:00 EST

While we did our best to provide extensive coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on violent video games, all we could really do was write the news and related analysis, which could lead only to the most superficial understanding of the nuances of this precedent-setting decision.

To really understand the case, you need to see computer-generated recreations of the justice-versus-justice gunfights that led to this historic decision -- and that's why NMA World Edition is so important. Head past the break and begin your legal education in earnest.

Continue reading NMA TV breaks down the Supreme Court game ruling

NMA TV breaks down the Supreme Court game ruling originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Victory lap: ESA responds to Supreme Court decision

Christopher Grant — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:30:00 EST

After battling the state of California since 2005, the Entertainment Software Association met the Supreme Court's historic decision today to classify video games as protected speech with both great joy and, we imagine, a tinge of sadness. During a press call this afternoon, ESA prez Michael Gallagher fielded question after question about the case, the court's dissenting opinions, and the likelihood of future legislation trying to curb the sale of violent games.

"This is the thirteenth consecutive decsion, and obviously the most important," Gallagher said, "upholding the first-amendment rights of video game developers and video game companies." After the Supreme Court decided to hear the California case, Gallagher says that the ESA has "seen a very steady drop-off in the volume of legislation targeted at content in our industry." In fact, "there's only a single federal bill that addresses these issues at the moment and it has at least one or no co-sponsors," Gallagher said proudly.

Continue reading Victory lap: ESA responds to Supreme Court decision

Victory lap: ESA responds to Supreme Court decision originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:00 EST

Between the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions published in today's Supreme Court decision on Brown v. EMA, there's a good 92 pages of legalese for enthusiastic gaming activists to pore over. If you don't feel like flipping through a novella of legal documents in search of relevant, easily digestible bits, feel free to check out some highlights from each opinion, which we've compiled after the jump!

Continue reading Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest

Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Senator Yee: SCOTUS ruling puts corporate America ahead of 'our children' [update: full statement]

Richard Mitchell — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:00:00 EST

After today's Supreme Court ruling, which declared it unconstitutional to ban the sale of violent video games to minors, California State Senator Leland Yee -- sponsor of the bill at the heart of the case -- is understandably disappointed. According to PC Magazine, Yee stated that the ruling "put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children." Yee added that the game industry would continue to profit "at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community."

While the bill was struck down, Yee is "certain" that the court battle made more parents aware of violent games and that it "forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games." Considering that ESRB ratings already decorate both sides of every retail game box -- with further details available online -- we can only assume the next step is to begin broadcasting rating information at a frequency only parents can hear.

Update: Senator Yee's full statement on the SCOTUS ruling can be found after the break. Yee praises Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the court's dissenting opinion. The statement also noted that, within the 7-2 verdict, two justices of the majority opinion believed that a revised version of the law could pass muster, implying that the final decision was narrower than it might appear.

Continue reading Senator Yee: SCOTUS ruling puts corporate America ahead of 'our children' [update: full statement]

Senator Yee: SCOTUS ruling puts corporate America ahead of 'our children' [update: full statement] originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:45:00 EST

In 2005, California state legislature passed Assembly Bill 1179, a law penned by Democratic state senator Leland Yee which prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. The law mandated the application of special stickers to titles deemed too violent, and slapped retail employees who sold those games to anyone under the age of 18 with a maximum $1,000 fine. The law was signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but was struck down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before it could be enforced.

Following an unsuccessful appeal of that decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the law's progenitors petitioned for a hearing in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was successful, the case was argued last November and, earlier today, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to uphold the decision of the lower courts: California Assembly Bill 1179 violates the First Amendment rights afforded to all forms of media in the United States.

This decision obviously doesn't just affect Californian teenagers with a penchant for video games above their maturity level. It represents a vote of confidence in games and the non-governmental agency (see: The ESRB) which regulates their sale.

Continue reading Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us

Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:21:00 EST

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinions on Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association, a case which argued the Constitutionality of a (since struck down) California state law which banned the sale of "violent" video games to minors. The majority opinion, decided upon by seven of the court's nine Justices, is to once again strike down the law.

The majority opinion, in clear terms, states:

Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas-and even social messages-through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority."

The decision falls in line with other decisions of the lower courts regarding video game-banning legislation, such as the respective decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which found the law unconstitutional. There was, of course, a dissenting opinion (in this case, representing the concerns of Justices Thomas and Breyer) which states:

The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We're sure to hear more from the Entertainment Software Association and other games lobbying groups in the coming hours, but the word from the highest court in the land is a promising one: Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States.

Continue reading Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law

Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:21:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Supreme Court decision on Schwarzenegger v. EMA possibly coming this week [update]

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:20:00 EST

According to SCOTUSblog, a site dedicated to tracking the activity of the head of our nation's Judicial Branch, a decision on November's hearing of Schwarzenegger v. EMA (now Brown v. EMA, reflecting California's new, assumedly punier governor) will be released this week. The hearing was held to review a California law which prohibited the sale of mature games to minors -- a law which was attacked due to its ambiguity in defining what constituted a mature game.

The blog expects the court to either issue its opinion on Brown v. EMA today or Thursday -- we'll make sure to let you know where they come down. Personally, we really hope they decide in favor of the EMA, as this would be a kind of a bummer of a week for video games to be totally outlawed. (That's probably not going to happen.)

Update: Though the Supreme Court was expected to rule this week, it looks like they'll be holding their decision for a later date. The SCOTUS session ends the week of June 27, and though the court could conceivably extend the session, a decision is expected before then.

Supreme Court decision on Schwarzenegger v. EMA possibly coming this week [update] originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Leland Yee and Activision VP to debate if games should be restricted

Griffin McElroy — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:00:00 EST

Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, March 17! Make your way down to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club to see two titans of the "violent games" debate square off in an argumentative deathmatch. We're speaking, of course, of Activision vice president George Rose and California state legislator Leland Yee, who authored the infamous AB-1179; the mature game ban bill that made its way up to the Supreme Court in November.

The two men will be debating the bill alongside Stanford Constitutional Law Center director Michael McConnell, with San Francisco Chronicle editor John Diaz serving as moderator, in a panel appropriately titled "Should Sales of Violent Video Games Be Restricted?"

If you're in the Bay area, you can grab your tickets now. You're not going to want to miss it. We hear there's gonna be points and counterpoints.

Leland Yee and Activision VP to debate if games should be restricted originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow moves on

Griffin McElroy — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 03:00:00 EST

The Entertainment Software Association has confirmed to Gamasutra that its General Counsel, Kenneth Doroshow, has left the organization to join forces with Burford Group, an investment advising firm based in Washington D.C.. You might remember Doroshow for his work in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court hearing last November, in which -- we think we can all agree -- the dude dunked all over the opposition's legal representatives. Like, he slam dunked it in their faces, and was all like, "Booyah," basically.

We wish Doroshow the best of luck with his new position, and hope the remainder of his career is marked by multitudes of equally boombastic, totally nasty slamma-jammas.

ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow moves on originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 03:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law

Griffin McElroy — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:00:00 EST

Activision Blizzard vice president and chief public policy officer George Rose has once again sounded off against attacks on his industry's First Amendment protections. This time, it's in the form of an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle which tears down the supporters of AB-1179, the California law which prohibited the sale of "excessively violent" games to minors. The law will not go into effect in 2011 due to its repeal by the federal courts -- but that didn't prevent Rose from venting some steam regarding the former law's endorsers.

"Sadly, supporters will accept nothing less than more laws, subbing for parents, that the state can't afford to enforce," Rose wrote. "So to whip up drama and hysteria where none justifiably exists, zealots supporting this movement cite the worst of the worst by harking back to video game dinosaurs like 1997's Postal." Rose argues that no other medium is judged based on one title, so doing so is "disingenuous" in the case of games. Ironically enough, you know what movie we'd use to pass judgment on the movie industry? Postal. Convenient, right?

Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ECA rally before the Supreme Court violent game hearing captured on video

Griffin McElroy — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:00:00 EST

Though you've probably heard plenty of empirical evidence on Xbox Live to the contrary, gamers are capable of being angry about something without totally losing their minds. Check out the video below of the ECA rally held before Schwarzenegger v. EMA to see how cooler heads prevailed in D.C.

Continue reading ECA rally before the Supreme Court violent game hearing captured on video

ECA rally before the Supreme Court violent game hearing captured on video originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Supreme Court oral arguments now available as audio

JC Fletcher — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:20:00 EST

You've skimmed the transcript. You've followed our coverage. Now, while we wait for something else to happen in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case before the Supreme Court, you can experience last week's oral arguments the way they were supposed to be experienced: by hearing them.

The audio is now available if you want to spend an hour of your day hearing history in the making, or if you want to add your own NBA Jam guy commentary to your favorite Scalia shutdowns. In any case, if you're a video game player and, especially, an American (although any drop in US revenue from violent games is going to affect which games are marketed and even made, affecting everyone), it would probably be a good idea to pay attention to this case in some manner.

Gallery: ECA Gamer Rally (11/2/2010)

Supreme Court oral arguments now available as audio originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Daily Show solves video game violence issue, saves Family Game Night

JC Fletcher — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:00:00 EST

Okay, so maybe you were waiting to learn about this critically important Supreme Court video game case until you could hear The Daily Show's take on it. And yes, for that, you should be deeply ashamed. But here it is -- just after the break!

In the clip, correspondent John Hodgman solves the violent video game problem through flattery, clever marketing and generous application of Ira Glass.

Continue reading Daily Show solves video game violence issue, saves Family Game Night

Daily Show solves video game violence issue, saves Family Game Night originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the recap

Christopher Grant — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:00:00 EST

Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was one for the history books. The great state of California - represented here by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, ironically no stranger to media violence himself - versus the Entertainment Merchants Association, "the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $33 billion home entertainment industry," according to its website. At stake: just the future of free speech in video games, is all! ECA lawyer Jennifer Mercurio puts it succinctly, "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced."

To get you up to speed on yesterday's goings-on, we've prepared this handy post. We've got pictures from the ECA-organized Gamer's Rally held before the court opened yesterday morning; pictured above is Jenner and Block LLP Partner Paul M. Smith, lead counsel for the video game industry in yesterday's proceedings. For the readers out there, try the full transcription of the oral arguments and, should 72 pages be a little dense for your lunchtime reading, we've encapsulated it all for you in our handy writeup here. Give it a read and impress your coworkers over lunch. "Did you read the Supreme Court transcript from yesterday? No? Well, I did and ..."

If you're looking for some background on what exactly Schwarzenegger vs. EMA could mean for consumers, look no further than our interview with the ECA's Jennifer Mercurio. If you're more interested in how the game industry sees itself in this mess, then you need to read our interview with ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow. If you're curious about how things went for the ol' game industry, read ESA prez Michael Gallaghers comments following the Supreme Court session. "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."

There's one final option, though. You could skip all that and simply read our highlight reel of SCOTUS quotes featuring additional commentary from the NBA Jam guy and well, that's fine too.

Gallery: ECA Gamer Rally (11/2/2010)

Continue reading Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the recap

Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the recap originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument

Griffin McElroy — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:42:00 EST

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."

ESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:42:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Our favorite SCOTUS quotes with commentary from the NBA Jam guy

Justin McElroy — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:50:00 EST

We're still poring over the transcripts from today's Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case, and as we discussed it, we decided our enthusiasm for the judges' utter contempt for the Schwazenegger side's argument could only be summed up with quotes from NBA Jam announcer Tim Kitzrow.

Enjoy.

Continue reading Our favorite SCOTUS quotes with commentary from the NBA Jam guy

Our favorite SCOTUS quotes with commentary from the NBA Jam guy originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now

Griffin McElroy — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:05:00 EST

You've read about the stakes, you've read about the procedure -- now it's time to read about exactly what went down in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today, when representatives from the Entertainment Software Association and the state of California butted heads over the contentious Schwarzenegger v. EMA case. The Supreme Court's official website recently posted a complete transcript of the oral arguments from both parties -- you can pore over an embedded version of it below.

The 72-page document is quite a read -- we'll update this post periodically with highlights from the proceedings. Click past the jump for more!

Continue reading Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now

Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:08:00 EST

When the clock strikes 10 a.m. tomorrow morning in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. By now, you know how the results of this landmark case will affect the video game industry and its consumers -- but who's actually going to bat for the industry in tomorrow's hearings? More importantly, how does that litigatory sausage get made?

Entertainment Software Association general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow is one such batter (or sausage-maker, depending on which of the previous metaphors you followed). A media law heavyweight in his own right, Doroshow has served as an executive for the Recording Industry Association of America and as senior counsel the U.S. Department of Justice before joining the ESA in September 2008. Tomorrow, he'll be one of the legal representatives for the Entertainment Merchants Association, responsible for helping it make its side of the argument to the Supreme Court.

Doroshow broke down the specifics of that argument for us earlier today. To learn about the case the ESA is presenting in court tomorrow -- as well as the possible repercussions of the Supreme Court's decision -- check out our Q&A with Doroshow after the jump.

Continue reading ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court

ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:40:00 EST

Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will convene to hear oral arguments for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association -- a case most gamers are likely familiar with. The court will decide whether or not to overturn the decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- both of which found California law AB 1179, which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors, to be unconstitutional.

According to Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, there's a lot more at stake in this case than whether or not mature titles will be legally withheld from Californian teenagers. Much, much more, in fact -- should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of the two lower courts, certain First Amendment protections currently afforded to video games (and, by association, other forms of entertainment media) could be abolished, completely changing the landscape of the industry.

Mercurio sums it up nicely: "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced."

Continue reading How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers

How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ECA to stage Washington rally prior to Supreme Court battle

Richard Mitchell — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:00:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

Oral arguments for the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court case are set to begin on November 2. In the run up to the historic court battle, which could result in the restriction of sales of violent video games, the Entertainment Consumers Association is planning to organize a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court itself. The event is set to take place on November 2 at 9:00 am at the US Supreme Court Building, with the ECA calling on gamers to join the rally "in support of free speech."

If you're planning on going, why not organize a carpool in the comments? After that, read through our litany of coverage on the issue, from its humble beginnings as a failed California state law to its upcoming moment in the spotlight before the Supreme Court. After all, we're sure it's a long ride to D.C. Might as well bone up on current events, right?

Continue reading ECA to stage Washington rally prior to Supreme Court battle

ECA to stage Washington rally prior to Supreme Court battle originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Activision Blizzard's chief public policy officer: California law unnecessary, a waste of money

Richard Mitchell — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:50:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

The game industry has fired off another preemptory salvo in the looming Supreme Court battle over California's violent video game law. Writing in the Orange County Register, Activision's chief public policy officer, George Rose, declares the law to be "a textbook example of government overreaching that is stubbornly trying to make sure blind zealotry is allowed to trump reason." Apart from the usual First Amendment argument, Rose also notes that the law would put unfair legal and financial pressure on store clerks, who could be held legally responsible for selling an inappropriate game to an underage customer.

"Enact this ominous law, and you leave it for the clerk to guess whether a game is covered by the law or not because it won't use the ratings system our industry developed," writes Rose, adding that clerks could be faced with losing their jobs or finding a way to reimburse their employer for incurred fines.

Rose also states that, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the ESRB rating system has successfully prevented underage customers from purchasing adult games. He elaborates that the "egregious violent games" referenced by politicians are either rated AO or aren't rated at all. Either way, retailers routinely do not stock such games.

Finally, Rose notes that the ESRB system is a privately funded program, whereas Governor Schwarzenegger's law proposes government funded enforcement. "California is a state with a history of budget shortfalls, IOUs, furloughed workers, closed DMV offices, shuttered courts, squeezed school districts where children wait weeks to start school, pummeled university budgets, stretched health care resources and cities without enough money to properly fund their police and fire needs," writes Rose, "They all can use state dollars that would be wasted here."

Activision Blizzard's chief public policy officer: California law unnecessary, a waste of money originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Senator Yee's office recommends you mail him Kinect, not 'dated controllers'

James Ransom-Wiley — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:40:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

In a cheeky response to the Video Game Voters Network initiative to bombard California senator Leland Yee's office with old and broken controllers, Yee's chief of staff Adam Keigwin told GamePolitics, "I think the Senator would appreciate a Kinect add-on rather than those dated controllers." That wasn't his only zinger.

"I can only assume these broken controllers must represent the broken promises of the video game industry to parents," Keigwin quipped in his reply to GP on the matter, before firing off a list of "free speech awards" Sen. Yee has earned for his apparent commitment to the First Amendment. "In fact, there is not a California legislator who has authored more bills to promote speech rights than Senator Yee."

Sen. Yee is the author of Caifornia's law AB 1179, signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2005, which bans the sale of certain "violent" games to minors. Two years later, the Ninth District Court of Appeals found AB 1179 to be a violation of the First Amendment and effectively terminated the law. However, the Governator fought back, leading us up to November 2, 2010: the day the U.S. Supreme Court will hear opening arguments in the case -- and two days before any of us can actually send Yee a Kinect unit.

Would the senator settle for a Move in the meantime?

Senator Yee's office recommends you mail him Kinect, not 'dated controllers' originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Swoon over lead counsel's arguments in Supreme Court violent games case

Christopher Grant — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:30:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

Maybe you mailed in a ColecoVision steering wheel to California senator Leland Yee, and while we're totally behind the sentiment, it's not going to make litigating the case against violent video games in front of the Supreme Court any easier. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the newest feature on Joystiq: Joy Beat, where we just totally swoon over dreamy boys whose smarts (not to mention great looks) make the gaming world a better place.

Our first Joy Beat honoree -- who would look great on a wall collage, just sayin' -- is Jenner and Block LLP Partner Paul M. Smith or, as you may know him, the lead counsel for the video game industry in the upcoming Supreme Court battle. Not sure if Smith has the chops? Give Joystiq alum (and Smith superfan #1) Kyle Orland's GamePolitics piece a read.

Speaking last week at at an intellectual property forum at Chicago-Kent University (where were you?), Smith lays out his case with slam dunks like, "I've litigated nine cases in a row where states have tried to define the category nine different ways -- and they always lose when they make this case because violence is considered a perfectly appropriate and normal part of what we give our kids to see starting from a very young age." Guys, that's just where he starts! Why bother with the whole "court case" thing? Let's just give Smith his trophy, give video gaming its first-amendment-protection-for-life badge and get back to the Q4 avalanche of simulated murder!

Swoon over lead counsel's arguments in Supreme Court violent games case originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The ESA wants YOU (to send in your broken controllers)

Richard Mitchell — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:05:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

With oral arguments set to begin on November 2 in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA Supreme Court case, the ESA, via its Video Game Voters Network (VGVN), is looking to send a message to the proposed law's chief proponent, California senator Leland Yee. As part of a campaign against the anti-game legislation, which the ESA terms "unconstitutional, unwarranted and unnecessary," the VGVN is asking gamers to send their old or broken controllers to Yee.

Additionally, the VGVN asks that gamers inscribe the message "I believe in the First Amendment" onto said controllers (we've illustrated the concept using an old ColecoVision steering wheel; pictured above), hoping Yee will understand that games should be protected as free speech -- and, perhaps more importantly, that game players are voters too. The VGVN adds that game accessories and cables are acceptable as well, making this the perfect time to finally put that GBA-GameCube link cable to good use.

Head over to the VGVN website for more details on how to send off your controllers and join the cause.

Continue reading The ESA wants YOU (to send in your broken controllers)

The ESA wants YOU (to send in your broken controllers) originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA prez addresses upcoming Supreme Court case in Baltimore Sun op-ed

Alexander Sliwinski — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:28:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

In an editorial written by Entertainment Software Association president Michael Gallagher for The Baltimore Sun, the executive laid out for the mainstream why California's proposed video game law is "based on the discredited myth that the fictional depiction of violence actually causes real violence."

"Never before has the Supreme Court restricted freedom of speech on the basis of violent content," writes Gallagher. "There is no logic in restricting sales of video games, which use avatars, but not books or movies, which often depict violence committed by -- and upon -- real people." This statement follows support from organizations representing other forms of media, which have submitted briefs backing the ESA. (If video games aren't protected, that means other media is at risk.)

"Legal precedent, expert opinion and logic all yield the same conclusion: The California statue is unconstitutional, unwarranted and unnecessary," Gallagher concludes. "Based on the law and the facts -- not the myths -- we hope the U.S. Supreme Court concurs."

Give the editorial a read. A decision in the case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA, is expected by Spring 2011; the Supreme Court will hear the opening oral arguments next month.

ESA prez addresses upcoming Supreme Court case in Baltimore Sun op-ed originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Activision joins industry chorus against proposed violent game law

Alexander Sliwinski — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:00:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

Activision Blizzard and CEO Bobby Kotick have released a public statement regarding the upcoming Supreme Court hearing in Schwarzenegger v. EMA on November 2. In the declaration, the top third-party video game publisher in the world aligns itself with the ESA and almost every other group that can see the ramifications against the First Amendment and all forms of media the law would have if it stands.

Kotick notes, "The sheer breadth of support exhibited by public interest organizations, civic and media groups, legislative leaders, academia and interested parties demonstrate both the importance video games have assumed in the hearts and minds of our nation and the sacredness of certain basic tenets of our Constitution. We will never give up the fight for the freedom of expression our industry deserves and we will never forget this support."

If you're curious in the list of organizations supporting the video game industry in the Supreme Court case, we've listed those who filed briefs in support of the ESA after the break.

Continue reading Activision joins industry chorus against proposed violent game law

Activision joins industry chorus against proposed violent game law originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Common Sense Media: 72 percent of parents support proposed Calif. violent game law

Griffin McElroy — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:15:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

The non-profit, family-centric organization known as Common Sense Media recently published the results of a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, which asked 2,100 parents about their stance on the contested California law that would ban the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. According to a press release from the group, 72 percent of respondents support the ban, while 75 percent would "rate the video game industry negatively when it comes to how they protect kids from violent video games."

Said Common Sense Media founder James Steyer: "What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the video game industry."

Of course, the Supreme Court isn't ruling on who decides which games kids play. The court's ruling on whether First Amendment protections can be waived for games deemed by ... someone to be too violent, formalizing a policy already adopted by major retailers into a California state law. Parents, as far as we know, still have the final say over what media their kids are allowed to consume -- not the video game industry, the ESRB, Governor Schwarzenegger or even the Supreme Court.

Then again, when you support your position with videos like the one posted after the jump (the link to which was included in Common Sense's press release), we can understand why parents might lose the equanimity required to make that distinction.

Continue reading Common Sense Media: 72 percent of parents support proposed Calif. violent game law

Common Sense Media: 72 percent of parents support proposed Calif. violent game law originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Entertainment Software Association files brief in Supreme Court case

Griffin McElroy — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:00:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

The Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association have voiced their side of the upcoming Supreme Court review of the 2005 California law which prohibits the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. The two organizations have filed a joint brief in the Supreme Court, which explicitly states (several times) that "the California statute is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstitutional."

The brief adds, "it would threaten freedom of expression not just for video games, but for all art forms. It would also tie up our courts in endless debates about what constitutes acceptable creative expression in our media. It protects no one and assaults the constitutional rights of artists and storytellers everywhere." Of course, in these matters, it would be irresponsible for us to side with one of the two involved parties but OH MAN COME ON THE ESA IS TOTALLY RIGHT.

Check out the entirety of the brief on the ESA's official site. Stay tuned -- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association will go into oral argument November 2.

Entertainment Software Association files brief in Supreme Court case originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Violent video game case gets its date in Supreme Court on Nov. 2

Mike Schramm — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:56:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

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.

Violent video game case gets its date in Supreme Court on Nov. 2 originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:56:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ESA 'humble' about chances against California in Supreme Court case

Alexander Sliwinski — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:00:00 EST

Filed under: Weird But True, Opinions, New In Pop Culture

[Laura Padgett]

Entertainment Software Association President Michael Gallagher mentioned in a briefing yesterday that he has a "great amount of respect for the Supreme Court" and feels modest about the trade group's chances of defeating the California game law heading to the United States' highest court.

"We're very humble about our prospects before the court greatly. We believe we're on the side of right here," Gallagher stated. "We've believed that for 10 years. That hasn't wavered one iota. You go into this preparing to win, but also very prepared to handle the other conclusions as well." The State of California and ESA will submit briefs to the court, along with supporting briefs, over the next few months. Oral arguments are expected this fall with a decision by the court next spring.

Asked if he believes winning will change the way States go about game laws, Gallagher explained, "[State government] moves like lightning and moves -- depending on where you are -- in an informed or uninformed manner. If we win, then we feel we'll be done at long last with these content issues. Video games ... it's already been recognized through a dozen decisions that we're entitled to the same first amendment treatment as movies, as music, as books. That is what we're hoping will be the law of the land at the conclusion of this case. So, we win, we can put this behind us and focus on incentives for the industry." Gallagher expressed those incentives included focusing on jobs and tax incentives for the industry, instead of regulatory issues.

Of course, if the Supreme Court finds in favor of California, the executive believes states will react immediately and the industry will be embroiled in trying to figure out what to do. He also notes that such a decision wouldn't just be about regulating games, but it opens up the door to going after movies, television and books.

ESA 'humble' about chances against California in Supreme Court case originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

ECA: Supreme Court case is 'single most important challenge' ever for game industry

Ben Gilbert — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:00:00 EST

This October is the earliest we could possibly see some movement on the US Supreme Court appeal of AB 1179, the California-based violent game bill that would fine retailers who sell M-rated titles to kids. But that's not stopping the Entertainment Consumer's Association from submitting an amicus brief to the court, not to mention a recently created online petition "which will be attached and submitted along with the brief, both formally becoming part of the official court documents," the lobby group announced today.

"The gaming sector, as a whole, has arrived at perhaps the single most important challenge it has ever faced in the US," ECA prez Hal Halpin notes in the release. "Anyone who cares about gaming should feel compelled to both sign the petition and encourage their friends and family to do similarly." Given the online nature of the petition, we're also encouraging all of our pets and invisible friends to sign up. In all seriousness, though, signing wouldn't hurt, and it only takes a few seconds -- less time than it takes to convince your mom that, no, Grand Theft Auto IV is not a murder simulator!

ECA: Supreme Court case is 'single most important challenge' ever for game industry originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 12 May 2010 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

California AG and developers sound off over bill facing Supreme Court

Ben Gilbert — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:00:00 EST

In a statement released by the International Game Developer's Association recently, the group called California's controversial game bill "oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research." The response came just days after the US Supreme Court decided to allow California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeal to review the bill on a federal scale, though it's been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in his state (not to mention the similar bills in other states that have also been shot down repeatedly).

We reached out to the California Attorney General's office to find out why it's pursuing a bill that's been plagued by overrulings, and were told, "All of those courts held that it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether extremely violent material can be treated the same as sexually explicit material under the First Amendment when it comes to minors. This means that we had to ask the Supreme Court to extend the law, something the lower courts were not willing to do." We further pressed for why it's targeting video games over films, television, and other entertainment mediums. A representative responded, "There is a growing body of social science that has identified violent video games as being especially harmful to children given the interactive nature of video games, and the FTC conducted investigations that showed it was easier for minors to buy Mature-rated video games than it was to get into R-rated movies."

However, the IGDA's statement contends "Violence is conveyed in explicit ways on television, in print media, via the Internet, and in film. All of these platforms constitute speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The piece also states the association's position that it remains staunchly against "censorship of expressive media in all forms" but points out that it's especially against politicians using that censorship "for political gain." The appeal could see its first hearing as early as this October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term.

[Via GamePolitics]

California AG and developers sound off over bill facing Supreme Court originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 03 May 2010 20:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

US Supreme Court to weigh California game law

Ben Gilbert — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:30:00 EST

[Laura Padgett]

The US Supreme Court today announced that it will consider an appeal by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding the sale of violent video games to minors in the state. This marks the first time the federal court has been involved in a video game-related case.

The California bill backed by the Schwarzenegger has seen many, many, many ups and downs over the course of its five-year life span, going from a fledgling bill just waiting for the right signature to a chronically reputed source of frustration for the head of state; and most recently failing in California's Ninth Circuit Court. But as the governor is known to do, he returned once again, fulfilling his promise to bring Assembly Bill 1179 to the highest US court, reports Reuters.

Entertainment Software Association president and CEO Mike Gallagher commented in a press release on the Supreme Court's decision to see the case, called "Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants" (number 08-1448), saying, "Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional." He hopes that "the Court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment."

If the appeal is overturned, the law would require more stringent labeling requirements of violent games sold in California, as well as the threat of a $1,000 fine for each game sold by a retailer to a minor illegally. Historically, US Supreme Court rulings have been used to set precedent for other cases. In so many words, should the appeal be overturned, the Court's ruling could affect similar court decisions in other states. The earliest the appeal would be seen is in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.

US Supreme Court to weigh California game law originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

California seeks US Supreme Court review of 'violent game ban' [update]

Randy Nelson — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:05:00 EST

The state of California is asking the United States Supreme Court to review a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision from February regarding its 2005 "violent video game law," declaring it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. According to GamePolitics. the law would require an additional warning label on games and slap retailers who sell violent games to minors with a $1,000 fine for each offense.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed Assembly Bill 1179 into law, said of today's action, "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."

Update: Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has weighed in on California's plea to the Supreme Court. His comments can be found after the break.

Continue reading California seeks US Supreme Court review of 'violent game ban' [update]

California seeks US Supreme Court review of 'violent game ban' [update] originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 20 May 2009 15:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

California video game law fails again in Circuit Court

Alexander Sliwinski — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:00:00 EST

The 9th Circuit Court has affirmed that the California game law is not going to fly -- so, state tax payers better prepare to write the Entertainment Software Association another check. This latest appeal was pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after a lower court had seemingly killed the law by placing a permanent injunction on it.

ESA president Michael Gallagher believes this is a "win" for California's citizens, stating this is a "clear signal" that this type of "reckless" legislation is an "exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time, and state resources." GamePolitics reports that Leland Yee (D) is pushing for California to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Wonder how much money the ESA would get back from fighting that?

California video game law fails again in Circuit Court originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments