ESA: Today is a "Bright Day" for Parents

ESA: Today is a "Bright Day" for Parents

image

The President of the Entertainment Software Association said the Supreme Court's decision is a total victory for the game industry.

Parents groups may be complaining about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the California statue limiting sales of violently deviant games to minors, but Michael D. Gallagher of the ESA says that's not the case at all. He and Paul Smith, the attorney who argued for the game industry in the Supreme Court back in November, said that today's decision will not be quickly overturned that, despite some dissenting opinions in the court, the industry is safe from legal scrutiny for at least a few decades.

"For consumers and parents, it's a very bright day," Gallagher said. "For parents, the Court's decision very clearly states that they are to be in control - not the state - for the content that is consumed in their homes."

Paul Smith expertly argued this case before the Justices themselves back in November 2010, and he sees the decision as a complete win. "You seldom, if ever, see such a strong, clear and sweeping decision from the Supreme Court the first time they get into an issue," he said. "This decision constitutes a categorical rejection of regulation of videogames based on their content."

Smith said that the Supreme Court considered the science of the studies which claim that videogames were harmful and rejected that notion as well. "The very people who claimed to have shown something significant about videogames acknowledged when they were under oath that they didn't think [games] were any different in their effects than Saturday morning cartoons, an area which the State chose not to regulate."

Zang a doo! (That's the technical legal term for a verbal smackdown.)

What about the opinion of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, which seemed to leave the door open for future legislation? Smith didn't think was going to happen anytime soon. "The Court does not overrule itself very regularly," he said. "The quickest you see is decades at a time so I don't think that that's very likely going to happen in the near future."

Smith also noted that Alito and Roberts didn't really give any guidelines for how such a law might be effectively worded. "It's my view, having worked on these cases for a decade, that it's not possible, using the tools of the English language, to write a law that separates out permissible versus impermissible violence for minors that would have anywhere near the clarity that is required under the First Amendment."

Gallagher elaborated by pointing out why we shouldn't be quibbling about the dissenting views. "The majority opinion is the unquestioned law of the land," he said. "Just because [Alito and Roberts say] it's possible to do something, that doesn't mean it's wise to do it."

The State of California spent six years and close to a million dollars in legal expenses to argue that the proposed law was legal in this country. Given the huge cost that the taxpayers of California have already paid in trying to get this law enacted, it's important that this decision be considered final. But I wondered if Alito and Roberts somehow kept the door open for more States to try to pass new laws that might meet the standards of the Constitution.

"Any State that passes a bill that tries to regulate videogames based on content is just asking to pay my legal fees, in the long run," Smith said.

Gallagher said that his definitive answer is: "No, that door has been slammed shut."

Permalink

Now hopefully some parents will actually take the freakin hint and stop wanting other people to raise their kids.

Also, holy god, how many posts has this one thing brought up now? 4? 5? It's like a hydra, one goes down two more come in its place!

Huzzah! I guess... I think that's good... Right? I haven't been following this court case very closely.

Well, glad to see the issue's been settled for now. I think from this point on games are going to become such a huge part of our culture that it'll be a no-brainer that they fall under freedom of speech.

"Oh but won't somebody please think of the childre- not now tommy! Mumy's busy.
Here, have a switchblade to play with."
Perhaps they won't do that anymore.
'perhaps' they might actually learn something.
But this is an all round good thing for everyone, other than bad parents.

And so, the industry, the gamers, and all others supporting of free speech, rejoiced.

The war may not be over, but this victory was surely sweet.

Finally, the Supreme Court itself has ordered that parents be responsible for parenting.
A victory for the industry and proper parenting!

Klagermeister:
Finally, the Supreme Court itself has ordered that parents be responsible for parenting.

If only this were the law of the land. I'd be a bit happier. As it is though, w00t!

Pointing out a typo at the end.

"Any State that passes a bill that tries to regulate videogames based on content is just ((asking to be pay)) my legal fees, in the long run," Smith said."

#Corrections

Klagermeister:
Finally, the Supreme Court itself has ordered that parents be responsible for parenting.
A victory for the industry and proper parenting!

One can only hope that it sets precedent.

Parents have ALWAYS been in control.

I don't get it. Parents are more in control than ever. With software to keep kids from going to certain websites, services from TV providers to block certain channels, etc. And yet they still feel the need to set state laws.

Sometimes I just feel like people want to set laws to force their ideals onto others or to make themselves feel important.

Parenting is much like art. No one technique works for everyone. Let them have their freedom.

The whole issue wouldn't have happend if parents actualy were parents. -.- Granted it's not everyone, but more then a handful. Nice to see common sense hasn't completely eluded everyone, but wasting tax payers dollers seems to be alive and well. *makes note to move out of California sometime soon*

Greg Tito:
But I wondered if Alito and Roberts somehow kept the door open for more States to try to pass new laws that might meet the standards of the Constitution.

Even if they have, we have a responsibility to honor that, don't we? If a state creates a law designed to keep these games out of the hands of minors, and that law meets the standards of the Constitution, why should we be poised to fight it?

We just got done, as an industry and its customers, screaming about how the Constitution protects us. We're in the middle of cheering because the integrity of that Constitutional protection was just upheld. If, in the future, regulation is handed down that still coincides with that Constitutional protection, and we fight it, we're just undermining the entire foundation of this most recent victory.

Don't just blindly fight anything directed at games. A well-written law could actually serve us well, in that it would continue to set a course away from attacking the protected status of video games. A law that deals with them as a protected medium would actually justify that status.

Jesus christ, these fucks really expect the Supreme Court to do their job for them. Look, the Supreme Court is not going to make little Timmy eat all his peas and Sally go to bed at eight, when you have a kid you take on certain responsibilities.

And if you can't stop the kids from doing something unless it's illegal, then congratulations! You're a shit parent, come right over here for your free kick to the balls.

That's a fair sentiment, that it would take years for this legislation to reapproach the court, seeing the usual time that it takes for cases like this to develop and come to the court. This particular one was eight years in the making, so that we won't see it or a decade makes perfect sense to me.

It's another great day for freedom.

Dastardly:

Greg Tito:
But I wondered if Alito and Roberts somehow kept the door open for more States to try to pass new laws that might meet the standards of the Constitution.

Even if they have, we have a responsibility to honor that, don't we?

We don't. Just because a justice or two tries to leave the door open doesn't mean it isn't irresponsible or unconstitutional.

If a state creates a law designed to keep these games out of the hands of minors, and that law meets the standards of the Constitution, why should we be poised to fight it?

Because that type of law has always been unconstitutional, and this ruling reaffirms that. Such a law can't meet the standards of the constitution. That is the effect of the majority decision of this ruling.

We just got done, as an industry and its customers, screaming about how the Constitution protects us. We're in the middle of cheering because the integrity of that Constitutional protection was just upheld. If, in the future, regulation is handed down that still coincides with that Constitutional protection, and we fight it, we're just undermining the entire foundation of this most recent victory.

Don't just blindly fight anything directed at games. A well-written law could actually serve us well, in that it would continue to set a course away from attacking the protected status of video games. A law that deals with them as a protected medium would actually justify that status.

I think I get what you are trying to say, I'm just pointing out that a law that respects the constitution would be very different from the type of law that was ruled on in this case.

Rooster Cogburn:
I think I get what you are trying to say, I'm just pointing out that a law that respects the constitution would be very different from the type of law that was ruled on in this case.

I agree--you do get what I'm trying to say. Any law proposed would have to consider this newly-minted interpretation of the Constitutions stance on free speech, and as such that law would have to be drastically different from the one dealt with in this case.

So there's no need for us to already start warming up our paranoia engine because of this perceived "opening" in the concurrent opinion. The decision itself has ensured that any future legislation would have to be far more sensible than what was proposed in this case.

We have a tendency to pre-overreact to anything we see that could potentially be critical of gaming, and I think that alone makes us an easy target. Folks used to call it having a "Punch Me Face"--the look of someone going around looking for a fight, inviting trouble.

Yay! It's finally over!! :D

Can we please talk about something else now?

Sizzle Montyjing:
"Oh but won't somebody please think of the childre- not now tommy! Mumy's busy.
Here, have a switchblade to play with."
Perhaps they won't do that anymore.
'perhaps' they might actually learn something.
But this is an all round good thing for everyone, other than bad parents.

Actually for bad parents its good as well because they might- Nurgle forbid - learn something (le gasp)

Tree man:

Sizzle Montyjing:
"Oh but won't somebody please think of the childre- not now tommy! Mumy's busy.
Here, have a switchblade to play with."
Perhaps they won't do that anymore.
'perhaps' they might actually learn something.
But this is an all round good thing for everyone, other than bad parents.

Actually for bad parents its good as well because they might- Nurgle forbid - learn something (le gasp)

I believe you will find my good man, that i have already made a point of that in my original post.
Unless i'm mis-interpreting you.
Which i probably am.

Dastardly:

Rooster Cogburn:
I think I get what you are trying to say, I'm just pointing out that a law that respects the constitution would be very different from the type of law that was ruled on in this case.

I agree--you do get what I'm trying to say. Any law proposed would have to consider this newly-minted interpretation of the Constitutions stance on free speech, and as such that law would have to be drastically different from the one dealt with in this case.

So there's no need for us to already start warming up our paranoia engine because of this perceived "opening" in the concurrent opinion. The decision itself has ensured that any future legislation would have to be far more sensible than what was proposed in this case.

We have a tendency to pre-overreact to anything we see that could potentially be critical of gaming, and I think that alone makes us an easy target. Folks used to call it having a "Punch Me Face"--the look of someone going around looking for a fight, inviting trouble.

Hmm, that makes sense. I may even untie this noose and break out the champagne instead :).

Greg Tito:
Parents groups may be complaining[/a] about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the California statue limiting sales of violently deviant games to minors...

Damn those California statues... standing all statuesque and shit.

OT: I'm glad the Supreme Court decided this way (as I'm sure nearly all of you are as well).

Hidden topic: What's your favorite kind of statue? Bronze? Stone? Marshmallow? Why?

W-wait...We WON!? How i've been Waiting for this Day! The time of fear and loathing is over, now it's time to...PARTY:

While I like the outcome, I'm just going to hide over here until the ESA goes back to whatever they were doing, because some of their decisions make me sad.

My favorite statue is made out of cheese.

"For parents, the Court's decision very clearly states that they are to be in control - not the state - for the content that is consumed in their homes."

If that was what they wanted, they'd be happy.

Implement this into NZ and I'll be even happier.

"Any State that passes a bill that tries to regulate videogames based on content is just asking to pay my legal fees, in the long run," Smith said.

And that's why he wins.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here