california posts

This Tuesday, oral arguments for and against the California game law that seeks to restrict the sales of games with violent content to minors will be made at the US Supreme Court. A well known conservative pundit was actually defending games this past week: Rush Limbaugh.The radio talk show host chatted with one of his listeners this past week on the subject of the California law.

In a transcript of the conversation on Limbaugh's web site he states, "If you want to buy something raunchy in a video game, you should be allowed to, and if it's too raunchy the market won't support it? Fine, it dies. If the market likes it, then we got a cultural problem to deal with, but the government ought to have nothing to do with it." He added, "Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"

[Via Kotaku]

This November, oral arguments will be given to the US Supreme Court in the case that pits the game industry against the state of California over a law that if approved would restrict the sales of certain games to minors. Game Politics reports that a mock version of that case was held at William & Mary Law School this past weekend.

In short, it sounds like the mock trial was unfortunately weight heavily against the game industry, According to a person who attended the event, he "understood the ESRB rating system better than any of the Moot Court participants." In the end, the mock court voted 6-3 in California's favor. We just hope this is not an indication of how the real court case will turn out.

The date has been set for the next phase in a US Supreme Court case that will affect how PC and console games are sold in the future in retail stores. GamePolitics reports that on November 2, the nine members of the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in "Schwarzenegger vs EMA", the long standing case that started with the 2005 California law that would ban the sale of certain PC and video games from children due to violent content.

The report states that after the US Supreme Court hears the oral arguments it then must make a decision on the case before it takes off on its summer recess period in 2011. Many game publishers fear that if the court decides that the California law is in fact legal it will adversely affect how games are sold in retail stores in the US. The law has already been named as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in two previous lower court decisions.

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court made the surprising decision to listen to the case that pits the state of California and the video game industry against each other. California's law, which would restrict the sales of certain games to minors, will be heard by the court sometime this fall.

CNBC reports that many US game publishers are concerned about what will happen if the US Supreme Court votes in California's favor. Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of Take Two Interactive, states, "I'm worried about it, and I think everybody in our business should be really worried about it." The main concern is that retailers might not sell M-rated games if the California law labels such games as being for adults only.

Indeed other states could pass laws similar to California's if the US Supreme Court approves it. Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello is quoted as saying, " ... we could end up with state level bureaucracies that define what's marketable in 50 different jurisdictions across the U.S." He adds, "It will screw us up in a real way."

It's taken a long time, but today the Associated Press reports that they US Supreme Court revealed it will indeed make the final decision on a law that was passed in California that bans the sale of certain PC and video games from children. The law was first proposed by California state senator Leland Yee and was signed into law by the state's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. It not only bans the sale or rental of "M' rated games to children under 18 years of age but would require that such games have new labeling requirements.

The game industry quickly got the original law suspended thanks to a lawsuit. In 2007 the law was deemed to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte. That court decision was upheld in 2009 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court in 2009 but California decided to go all the way to the US Supreme Court for its final decision. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn the two previous court decisions in this case it could have vast and serious repercussions for the entire US game industry. The Entertainment Software Association, the main trade organization for the US game industry, sent over an email to Big Download saying, 'We are hopeful 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."

It has come down to this for California's video-PC game law. Passed back in 2005 by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the law, which would regulate the sales of games with violent content to minors, has already been declared unconstitutional by two courts. Now GamePolitics is reporting that the US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the final appeal of the proposed law by the state of California today.

It's the first time that such a proposed law has come up before the highest court in the land (although it did deal with a similar case that involved video game arcade machines back in 2001). Similar laws have been shot down in court many times before but California, which has already likely spent tons of taxpaper money trying to defend their law against the game industry's own lawyers, seems determined to have this case heard. GamePolitics reports that the Supreme Court's final decision should be revealed on October 5.

It looks like the state of California is making one last ditch effort to save its proposed law regulating the sales of PC or video games to minors. Today the state's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and its attorney general Jerry Brown have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision made by lower courts on their law that would restrict the sales of games with violent content to minors along with labeling of those games.

The law was passed way back in 2005 but was quickly placed under an injunction preventing its enforcement thanks to a lawsuit by the game industry. In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte determined that the law was unconstitutional and that decision was affirmed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court.last February.

In his decision to appeal to the US Supreme Court, Schwarzenegger stated, " I will continue to vigorously defend this law and protect the well-being of California's kids." However his move was slammed by game industry reps. GamePolitics has some quotes from those officials, all of whom mention the fact that the state government is already dealing with a massive financial shortfall. Entertainment Software Association president Michael Gallagher stated, "Rather than focus on these very real problems, Governor Schwarzenegger has recklessly decided to pursue wasteful, misguided and pointless litigation."

California's efforts to regulate the sales of certain PC and console games to minors has hit yet another roadblock. GamePolitics reports that the 9th Circuit Court has reaffirmed an earlier court decision that declared the law to be unconstitutional under First Amendment free speech grounds.

Championed by California state senator Leland Yee the law, which would have banned the sales of games with violent content to minors, was signed into law by California Governor (and star of a few games himself) Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. The law was immediately suspended thanks to a lawsuit by the game industry and in 2007 a federal district court judge overturned the law. California decided to appeal the ruling, but today's 9th Circuit Court ruling kept the earlier decision intact.

Of course, California could appeal their case to the US Supreme Court and in fact Lee is asking the state's Attorney General Jerry Brown to do exactly that. However, the state government is still reeling from having to deal with a major budget crunch. It's possible that they might feel that spending even more money on a cause that is almost certain to be losing effort to not be worth it.

Today is a big day in the PC and video game industry as the state of California presents its case for an appeal of their law that would have banned the sales of games with violent content to minors in the state. The law, first proposed by state senator Leland Yee, was signed into law in 2005 by California Governor (and star of a few games himself) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

However the game industry, lead by the Entertainment Software Association, filed a lawsuit against the new law which prevented it from being enforced. In 2007 a federal district court judge overturned the law, saying that it was violating First Amendment issues (as with every other similar law that has been proposed in the US). The state of California decided to appeal.

GamePolitics has the details on today's big hearing including which judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will be there to listen to the arguments for and against the law. One of the judges, Alex Kozinski, apparently wrote game reviews for the Wall Street Journal so at least one of them has some knowledge of the game industry.

The Entertainment Software Association may have had a disappointing E3 this year but the game industry trade group continues to fight in court against laws that it believes restrict the sales of game in violation of the First Amendment. This week the ESA got a big fat check ($282,794) from the state of California to pay back the ESA's legal fees in such a case.

The reason for the pay check? Several months ago, California lost in court over a law passed by their Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 that would have restricted the sales of certain games with violent content to minors. Even with the reimbursement check, the state has continued the fight for their law in appeals court. In the press release, ESA president Michael Gallagher was critical of Schwarzenegger's continued court fight, pointing out that the state is in a budget crisis at the moment with massive layoffs of state workers and pay cuts for many more employees. "It is unfortunate that the state is stubbornly pursuing an appeal that is likely to lead to even more court-awarded fees," Gallagher stated.