Schwarzenegger V. Video Software Dealers Association
The Supreme Court has granted a decision for next term, starting October 4, in the hearing of Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association. In varying states, it has been brought up in courts that video games ought to have the same freedom of speech that films, books, music, et cetera enjoy. Others, however, feel that there is a level of violence in video games that encourages violent behavior, a claim that is constantly being studied, and often denied much validity. However, the state of California wishes to more firmly put in law punishments and fines to those that rent or sell violent videogames to minors.
What's notable here is that the Supreme Court has decided to become involved, indicating a federal decision with consequences much farther reaching. Such decisions have often been handled quite adequately on the state level, and in favor of the video game industry, in six other states. The Supreme Court held off on this decision until another case involving violent expression, U.S. v. Stevens, where they struck down a law that banned the depiction of violence against animals in video.
California is urging the Supreme Court to enact laws similar to Ginsberg v. New York, where it was found that the law could bar minors access to obscene material that could harm minors.
The video game industry, in rebuttal to California's proposed $1000 fines and civil penalties for those found in violation of the law, stated the following:
In over 50 years of obscenity jurisprudence, the Court has never applied the obscenity doctrine outside the context of sexual speech. What the State proposes in this case would effect a sea [of] change in the permissible regulation of all media -- including books, movies, and television programs -- that contain violent content and are accessible to minors.
They also brought up that the FTC has praised the video game industry on its ratings and following through on such ratings in points of purchase, ranking highly among its peers.
VorpalBunny
Posted to Miscellany on 26 April 2010
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: california, freedom of speech, ftc, ratings, schwarzenegger, supreme court, violence
Sometimes these decisions are not what they seem. It's not uncommon for a party, even a state government, to try and provoke a ruling in an effort to protect themselves from future actions that would be barred by that ruling. Enforcement on this issue would cost a lot of money for the state to actually do the job it made into law--so if the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) overturns the law, the state will save money.
The fact that the law was actuated in 2005 but never enforced is possible evidence that the state has no interest supporting Yee's law. Note the text bytes posted by the SF Chronicle:
Yee said in a statement today, "I am hopeful that the high court will determine our law to be constitutional, but regardless, states are now certain to receive direction on how to proceed with this important issue."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed Yee's bill into law, said, "I am pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up this issue, and I look forward to a decision upholding this important law that gives parents more tools to protect their children, including the opportunity to determine what video games are appropriate."
I don't think these two expect or even want to win. Also, the suit was not brought against a retailer for breaking the law, a special interest organization is suing the governor.
Legislators sometimes make laws to appease their supporters and then don't enforce them to appease everyone else. It's a Victorian compromise that allows legislators to appear consistent with their supporters while not really changing anything.
Or it could totally be real. Let's watch, shall we?
Thank you, Mittens. So far, all the reporting I've seen on the issue (primarily through most other gaming websites, admittedly) is playing up the ESA's dedication to this 'fight,' which seems to be a lot of grandstanding for the purpose of once again reiterating that games don't cause violent behavior in people any more than other media does.
It does seem, like you say, that this was primarily brought up so as to make a federal decision in the case and provide guidance.
The .HDR file extension is associated with Apollo HDRU. Music Software
Star of Predator, Conan the Barbarian and Terminator says No to violence in entertainment. Hypocrite!