Amnesiac
October 25th, 2010, 09:02 PM
November 2 will be an important day in game history. That's when the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v. EMA, which contests the constitutionality of a California law. That law would criminalize the sale to minors of video games that the state deemed violent and would require that such games sport a 2-inch square sticker on their covers bearing warnings about its adult content.
The law, which was challenged in court almost immediately after it was signed in 2005, was ruled unconstitutional in 2007 and again in 2009 on appeal. Judges in both cases used "freedom of expression" grounds to strike down the law, which was written by state Senator Leland Yee (D-California). It is being challenged by the Entertainment Merchants Association retailer organization and the Entertainment Software Association game publisher trade group.
For a look at how the Supreme Court hearing will unfold, GameSpot spoke with Jennifer Mercurio, vice president and general counsel for the Entertainment Consumers Association. The ECA is an organization dedicated to preserving the rights of the consumer and is holding a rally in front of the Supreme Court the morning of the hearings.
From here. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6282814.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;12)
As I often say: social conservatism is a load of shit. Not only is this law unconstitutional, as ruled twice (I'm expecting the Supreme Court to uphold the previous rulings), it implies that video game violence contributes to IRL youth violence, which is a common misconception (http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html) (here's more (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/04/study_kids_unaf/) and more [see page 22] (http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf)!).
The law, which was challenged in court almost immediately after it was signed in 2005, was ruled unconstitutional in 2007 and again in 2009 on appeal. Judges in both cases used "freedom of expression" grounds to strike down the law, which was written by state Senator Leland Yee (D-California). It is being challenged by the Entertainment Merchants Association retailer organization and the Entertainment Software Association game publisher trade group.
For a look at how the Supreme Court hearing will unfold, GameSpot spoke with Jennifer Mercurio, vice president and general counsel for the Entertainment Consumers Association. The ECA is an organization dedicated to preserving the rights of the consumer and is holding a rally in front of the Supreme Court the morning of the hearings.
From here. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6282814.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;12)
As I often say: social conservatism is a load of shit. Not only is this law unconstitutional, as ruled twice (I'm expecting the Supreme Court to uphold the previous rulings), it implies that video game violence contributes to IRL youth violence, which is a common misconception (http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html) (here's more (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/04/study_kids_unaf/) and more [see page 22] (http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf)!).