Kinect for Xbox One coming to PC
Xbox One does not provide any built-in DVR capabilities
Xbox One increases friends lists to 1,000
Xbox One achievements dynamic, not limited to single games
SCOTUS ruling on California game law expected Monday
by Steve Watts, Jun 24, 2011 11:30am PDTThe Supreme Court of the United States is expected to rule on Brown v. EMA (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) next week, most likely on Monday. The case extends from a 2005 California law drafted by state senator Leland Yee, which restricts the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18, and would require special labels on offending games.
The law was suspended, then struck down, in a California district court due to a violation of the First Amendment. California appealed, but it was struck down again by the Ninth Circuit Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which went to the SCOTUS bench in April 2010.
The law attempted to use a variation of the Miller Test, which can be used to circumvent the First Amendment if a state can provide a compelling government interest in doing so, and in cases of obscenity. The Ninth Circuit Court rejected this argument, claiming that a compelling interest hadn't been shown. Obscenity laws generally refer strictly to sexual content, not violence.
When argued before the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia noted that obscenity law has never applied to violence, and expressed concerns about the First Amendment being undermined. Justice Ginsberg asked why video games are set apart from other forms of mass media like movies and comic books. The Justices seemed skeptical of the case on the whole, but grilled the EMA side on where one draws the line with protecting violent content.
While it is a state case, the ruling has the serious potential to impact the video game industry as a whole. A decision in the EMA's favor would grant video games the protection of the First Amendment from the highest US court, while a decision for California could inspire other states to draft similar laws. We'll be watching for the results.
Comments
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Brown v. EMA next week, most likely on Monday. The case could have a large impact on the video game industry, and determining if games are protected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Brown v. EMA next week, most likely on Monday. The case could have a large impact on the video game industry, and determining if games are protected by the First Amendment. : Shacknews
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 16 replies.
SCOTUS has ruled that it is perfectly allowable for some types of speech to not be fully protected, and that states have a prevailing right to limit that speech (read: porn).
That's likely all fine and dandy, but the CA law that is at the center of the contest attempted to called "violent video games" as unprotected free speech and thus can be regulated. This isn't necessary bad in of itself, but the bill is *specifically vague* on what "violent" is for a video game. Interpreted narrowly, we're talking your Postal's and the like, but interpreted broadly (as was made at oral arguments for this), games like Mario and Sonic where cartoon violence is employed could suddenly become regulated speech.
And that brings it around to your point, is that this is not a factor at all in any other entertainment industry. No one cries foul to anything short of extreme violence on the screen and certainly isn't calling for law-enforced regulations to prevent minors from seeing it. It is treating the video game industry as a completely different type of media.
Which is why nearly every expert I read on this case says the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of the EMA and against the CA law, simply because of the vagueness of "violent" and that applying a standard to one part of an industry and letting another slide is BS.
You must be logged in to post.