Supreme Court to Hear Schwarzenegger v. EMA; Single Most Important Court Case in Gaming History

The Supreme Court will hear the Schwarzennager v. EMA case on November 2, 2010. If sucessful with the Supreme Court, this case will enact a California law banning the sale or rental of certain violent video games to minors. Here's a little history about the lawsuit courtesy of Media Coalition.

Legislative History: On October 7, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill restricting the sale or rental of certain video games to anyone under the age of 18. The computer and video games are classified as "violent video games" and restricted if the depictions of violence are "offensive to the community" or if the violence depicted is committed in an "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" manner.  Under the law, game manufacturers and distributors would be required to label games with 2" x 2" stickers displaying the numeral "18" on their front covers.

District Court Challenge: The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) [now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA)] and Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed a complaint challenging the law on October 17, 2005. On December 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Whyte granted a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the California video game law while the lawsuit is pending. The judge found that the law likely violates the First Amendment. On May 12, 2006, the cross motions for summary judgments were heard. On August 6, 2007, Judge Whyte granted a permanent injunction.  The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and that, while the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors, defendants did not offer proof that video games are any different from other media, nor does any generally accepted study exist to support the idea that the interactive nature of video games leads to violent behavior.

Ninth Circuit Appeal: The state appealed the granting of a permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 5, 2007.  Briefs in the appeal were filed by the state on January 2, 2008 and by the plaintiffs on February 7. Media Coalition submitted an amicus brief for filing on February 13.  The amicus brief argues first: that the state's claim is contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court and Courts Of Appeal precedent and could lead to a wide array of mainstream books, magazines, movies, videos, recordings, and other material with violent content becoming subject to regulation; second, that the terms used to define a "violent video game" are unconstitutionally vague; and third, the labeling requirement is unconstitutional compelled speech and a content-based requirement.  The state's reply brief was filed February 22, 2008.

The Ninth Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional on February 20, 2009. On August 5, 2008, the State of California reimbursed plaintiffs $282,794 in attorneys’ fees.

Appeal to the Supreme Court: On May 20th, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking the Court to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Reaction from Media Coalition and others can be found here. On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the state of California's petition for certiorari in Schwarzenegger  v. EMA. The Court's decision to take the case marks the first time it has considered any of the recent spate of laws restricting or banning certain video games.

The state of California filed its brief with the Supreme Court on July 12. On July 19, California Senator and author of the violent video game law at issue, Leland Yee, joined the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Psychological Association in submitting an amicus brief in support of his law to the Supreme Court. Common Sense Media and the Eagle Forum also filed amicus briefs in support of defendants. Louisiana Attorney General James D. Caldwell also filed a brief in support of the law signed by the attorneys general of ten other states. The respondents, Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Consumers Association, will submit their briefs on or before September 10. Amicus briefs supporting respondents are due September 17.

Isn't it ironic, Arnold Shwarzenegger, 80's action star of violent movies such as Terminator 2 and Conan the Barbarian is trying to ban violent games in California? I think so. Even if you're not a Californian, you should sign the Entertainment Consumers Association petition to show your support for the industry. If this passes, it will set a helluva bad precedent, and there are already motions in ten other States that will happen if this court case passes through the Supreme Court successfully. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will be intelligent enough to realize that banning games based on the vague term "violent" is so blatantly unconstitutional, that passing this would be the equivalent of exhuming all the Founding Fathers, digging them a mass grave, and then getting a team of undersexed 'roid junkies to whip out their collective dicks and go to town on old George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and company.