Tag Archives: schwarzenegger v. ema

Jon Stewart Tramples on Free Speech and Comes Out in Favor of Censorship

Posted on by
Bookmark and Share

On last night’s The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart took up the recently decided Supreme Court case Brown v. EMA which dealt with the restriction of sales of “violent video games” to children.  The court decided in a 7 to 2 decision that it violates free speech to limit the sales, but also that it’s a parent’s responsibility to make these decisions.

Justice Scalia put it succinctly and eloquently in the decision where he wrote:

Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium.

Those same protections that apply to Stewart’s nightly show apply to video games, and by not defending free speech in every form, that makes him a hypocrite.

Here’s the Stewart clip.

[vodpod id=Video.12045952&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Ironically, Stewart’s guest was Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the loudest proponents of the war in Iraq.  So, to sum up his view, real war and death = good, fake violence = bad.

[vodpod id=Video.12039735&w=425&h=350&fv=autoPlay%3Dfalse]

Stewart is a known video game fan too.

CBLDF Cheers Free Speech Victory in Brown v. EMA!

Posted on by

Official Press Release

CBLDF Cheers Free Speech Victory in Brown v. EMA!

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund applauds today’s Supreme Court decision to affirm the First Amendment rights of creators, readers and retailers by denying states the ability to create new restrictions on violent content in Brown v. EMA.  In a 7-2 decision, the high court struck down a California law that would have banned the sale and rental of violent video games to minors, and would have made violence a new category of unprotected speech.

The CBLDF was active in opposing the law, and filed its own amicus brief arguing that the California law was unconstitutional by citing a history of moral panics, most notably the anti-comics fervor that nearly dismantled the comics industry in the 1950s. The arguments presented in CBLDF’s brief were part of the discussion in oral arguments, and cited in the Court’s majority decision.

CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein says, “We’re extremely pleased that the Court’s decision preserves the First Amendment rights of the users and creators of video games, and that they resisted California’s desire to establish new categories of unprotected speech. We’re also gratified that our discussion of the comics industry’s painful experience with moral panic and legislative meddling helped inform the positive outcome we see this morning.”

CBLDF legal counsel Robert Corn-Revere of Davis Wright Tremaine wrote the brief.  He says, “The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. EMA applied well-established First Amendment principles to find the California law is unconstitutional.  In reaching his conclusion, Justice Scalia’s majority opinion noted the crusade against comics led by Dr. Frederic Wertham and observed that it was inconsistent with our constitutional traditions.  It traced the long history of censorship involving media the government claimed ‘corrupted youth — from movies to comic books — and held that such crusades cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment.”

Please visit www.cbldf.org for more news and analysis on this important decision, including analysis by Mr. Corn-Revere to be published later this afternoon.  Please support the CBLDF’s defense of free speech issues like this by making a donation today!

About CBLDF
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1986 as a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights for members of the comics community. They have defended dozens of Free Expression cases in courts across the United States, and led important education initiatives promoting comics literacy and free expression. For additional information, donations, and other inquiries call 800-99-CBLDF or visit them online at www.cbldf.org.

Breaking – U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Video Games as Free Speech

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

Just moments ago, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the video game industry and retailers in Brown v. EMA (it used to be Schwarzenegger v. EMA).  The full opinion can be found here.

Justice Scalia who wrote the opinion stated:

…the act forbidding sale or rental of violent games to minors does not comport with the 1st Amendment.

Alito concurred with the judgement, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.  Justices Thomas and Breyer were the ones who dissented in an opinion written by Thomas.

The court had to decide if a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors was a violation of the protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The Ninth Court had ruled in favor of the video game industry.

From the opinion:

Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium.

Further the opinion delivers a blow to those claiming video games cause psychological harm to children including increasing aggressive behavior.

Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposureto violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demon-strated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects pro-duced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regula-tion is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.

Update 1 – To me this really sums up the decision:

Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, “esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.”

Update 2: The CBLDF’s arguments were also cited in the majority decision:

Many in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s blamed comic books for fostering a “preoccupation with violence and horror” among the young, leading to a rising juvenile crime rate. See Note, Regulation of Comic Books, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 489, 490 (1955). But efforts to convince Congress to restrict comic books failed. Brief for Comic Book Legal Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae 11–15.5 And, of course, after comic books came television and music lyrics.

George Will Looks At Comic Books

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

This past weekend George Will in his Washington Post op-ed looked at censorship in entertainment. Entitled Our puritanical progressives, Will through connection to Fredric Wertham makes the argument that it’s progressives that are responsible for censorship in entertainment.

There’s numerous problems with Will’s writing, first and foremost, is his understanding of the word “progressive.” Wikipedia actually has a pretty decent rundown on the progressive ideology:

American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

So where does Wertham fall in there? Wertham was primarily concerned about violence and with protecting children from psychological harm, not exactly a progressive cause.  His book, Seduction of the Innocent focused on entertainment and particularly comic books and their “corruption of the youth.”  This lead to Senate hearings and the formation of the Comic Code Authority and cancellation of quite a few comic books due to their content.

The problem with Will’s article isn’t the history he cites, it’s his use of “progressive.” At no point does he make the case Wertham ever was one other than calling him one. One would say Wertham is more of a puritan or nannyist when it comes to entertainment, not so much a progressive. Will goes on to say:

Progressivism is a faith-based program. The progressives’ agenda for improving everyone else varies but invariably involves the cult of expertise – an unflagging faith in the application of science to social reform. Progressivism’s itch to perfect people by perfecting the social environment can produce an interesting phenomenon – the Pecksniffian progressive.

Progressives tend to favor advocating changes or reform through governmental action.  The progressive ideology is about improving harsh or unfair conditions, not telling you what you can or can’t watch.

As a whole the history Will cites is correct and gives a good background of the censorship of comic books and today’s attacks on video games. It’s unfortunate that he drags ideological labels into the battle, when today’s fights cross party lines.

The California law Will refers to was put forth by the State of California and championed by an elected Democrat but the court case bears the name of the state’s Republican Governor. When looking across the nation one can find numerous cases of censorship across parties.  When it comes to scoring political points with parents by demonizing the latest trend, fad, or form of entertainment, both parties and all ideologies are guilty.

This has nothing to do with progressive ideals, in fact I’d argue it’s the antithesis of it.  This is a new form of entertainment (video games) going through the puritan/nannyist smell test of “think about the children.”

Glenn Ray follows up on Will’s article. Agreeing with me this is a Puritan issue, not a progressive one. The writer cites himself as both a Puritan and progressive and lays out quite well that the two can be separate. While Ray says, he’s not a fan of today’s entertainment, he also cite’s this a “Puritan problem.”

I never used to believe in censorship, but that was before the Bill Ayers-Black Panther-LSD-meth- Islamic fascism and sexual revolution era of American values….this return to paganism and the fall of democratic senses.

Kind of interesting that Will who would be considered a conservative is against this modern day censorship, Ray who clearly a faith-based conservative is one that favors them.

Here I’ve shown two individuals of the similar side of the coin with opposing views on censorship, I hope George Will will think again before painting progressives in the same way.

Wedcomic Takes on Schwarzenegger v. EMA

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

Webcomic Virtual Shackles has taken on how the proposed California game law might work in the real world.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor pointed out what could easily be viewed as a rather large loophole in the law at the heart of Schwarzenegger v. EMA.

The law is concerned about damage and violence towards”human beings” in video games.  Justice Sotomayor noticed that vagueness.  Here’s the relevant exchange:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?

MR. MORAZZINI: No, it wouldn’t, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So if the video producer says this is not a human being, it’s an android computer simulated person, then all they have to do is put a little artificial feature on the creature and they could sell the video game?

MR. MORAZZINI: Under the act, yes…

CBLDF Legal News!

Posted on by

Official Press Release

Legal News

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Urges Supreme Court to Reject New Restrictions on Speech in Video Game Censorship Case

Last Friday, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA, urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of any video game containing violent content to minors, and requiring manufacturers to label such games, is unconstitutional.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund submits that, if allowed to stand, California’s law would reverse fundamental First Amendment principles by creating a new category of unprotected speech, diminishing the First Amendment rights of minors, and reducing First Amendment protection for new media. The CBLDF argues that the law under review is the most recent example of government improperly attempting to regulate content by using junk science, and calls upon a history of moral panics against media that includes the 1950s crusades against comics that crippled the industry and harmed the art form. The CBLDF asks the Supreme Court to deny California this attempt to roll back protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, as it and other courts have correctly done in the past.

The full text of the brief is available at http://www.cbldf.org

CBLDF & Dark Horse Cheer Free Speech Victory in Ninth Circuit!

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and Dark Horse Comics applaud a decision issued by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that two Oregon statutes that criminalize distributing sex education and other non-obscene materials to minors are unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. The State of Oregon argued that the statutes applied only to “hardcore pornography,” but the Ninth Circuit found that they applied to much more, including Kentaro Miura’s manga “Berserk,” Judy Blume’s “Forever,” and Margaret Atwood’s “A Handmaid’s Tale.” The plaintiffs did not challenge Oregon’s existing law making it a crime to contact a minor with the intent of having sexual contact. CBLDF and Dark Horse were among the plaintiff group challenging the statutes.

Mike Richardson, publisher of plaintiff Dark Horse comics says, “We were extremely happy to see these statutes overturned. Our Constitution’s First Amendment was intended to keep the hands of the government off the printing presses of America. Creators everywhere can breath a sigh of relief that these laws, open to interpretation and likely to be abused, have been put down.”

The full text of the decision is available at http://www.cbldf.org

Visit The CBLDF At the WeHo Book Fair

This Sunday, September 26, the CBLDF and our friends at the Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab will be set up at the West Hollywood Book Fair! at West Hollywood Park!  Come Meet Betsy Rosenblatt, CBLDF’s Advisory Chair for Education & Outreach at our stall, booth  D35, where we’ll also have a full array of premiums to support the cause!

Recent News From The CBLDF

Job Opportunities At CBLDF

ComicsAlliance & CBLDF Launch THE MONSTERS PROJECT!

THE CBLDF PRESENTS LIBERTY ANNUAL 2010

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Urges Supreme Court to Reject New Restrictions on Speech in Video Game Censorship Case

Posted on by

Official Press Release

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA, urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of any video game containing violent content to minors, and requiring manufacturers to label such games, is unconstitutional.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund submits that, if allowed to stand, California’s law would reverse fundamental First Amendment principles by creating a new category of unprotected speech, diminishing the First Amendment rights of minors, and reducing First Amendment protection for new media. The CBLDF argues that the law under review is the most recent example of government improperly attempting to regulate content by using junk science, and calls upon a history of moral panics against media that includes the 1950s crusades against comics that crippled the industry and harmed the art form. The CBLDF asks the Supreme Court to deny California this attempt to roll back protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, as it and other courts have correctly done in the past.

Charles Brownstein, Executive Director of CBLDF, says “The case California makes against video games is one familiar to the comic book industry, which was nearly destroyed by government attempts at regulation in the 1950s. Then, as now, moral crusaders claimed that popular new media containing depictions of violence were detrimental to our youth. Then, as now, pseudo-science was used to back such claims. Those claims weren’t true in the 1950s, and they aren’t true now.”

Brownstein adds, “We hope that the Supreme Court denies California’s attempt to diminish the First Amendment, and spares the video game industry the fate that was suffered by the comic book industry in the past. We also encourage them to deny California’s claims so that comic books and other media don’t suffer under a new constitutional standard that creates new categories of unprotected speech and diminishes the First Amendment rights of minors.”

At issue in Schwarzenegger v. EMA is a challenge to a California video game law, enacted in 2005, that prohibited the sale or rental to minors of any video game containing certain violent content. The law — blocked by a federal judge in 2006 before it took effect — also required such manufacturers to include an “18 and older” warning label on the front of the package and provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for violations. In 2008, CBLDF, as part of Media Coalition, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the respondent in today’s case, arguing that speech with violent content could not be regulated by the government and that the labeling requirement was unconstitutional as compelled speech. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously that the law violates the First Amendment.

The CBLDF brief was written by the organization’s General Counsel, Bob Corn-Revere of Davis Wright Tremaine. The brief is available online here. A wiki about the case, including links to all legal papers and briefs, is online at http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Schwarzenegger_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

Please support the CBLDF’s work by making a monetary contribution and by following us and spreading the word on Twitter and Facebook.
–
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1986 as a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights for members of the comics community. They have defended dozens of Free Expression cases in courts across the United States, and led important education initiatives promoting comics literacy and free expression. For additional information, donations, and other inquiries call 800-99-CBLDF or visit them online at http://www.cbldf.org.

Stan Lee Supports Free Speech, So Should You

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

The Video Game Voters Network sent out an email to it’s video game playing list “from” Stan Lee.  The issue is the upcoming Supreme Court case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA.  The court case would restrict sales of video games to minors.  In a letter penned to the audience the comics legend runs parallels between the pogroms run against comics and today’s attacks on video games.

From his letter:

Comic books, it was said, contributed to “juvenile delinquency.” A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not “afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.” Comic books were burned. The State of Washington made it a crime to sell comic books without a license. And Los Stan LeeAngeles passed a law that said it was a crime to sell “crime comic books.” Looking back, the outcry was — forgive the expression — comical.

The more things change, as they say, the more they stay the same. Substitute video games for comic books and you’ve got a 21st century replay of the craziness of the 1950s. States have passed laws restricting the sale of video games and later this year, the Supreme Court will hear a case about one of those laws, this one passed in California. Why does this matter? Because if you restrict sales of video games, you’re chipping away at our First Amendment rights to free speech and opening the door to restrictions on books and movies.

First they came for comic books, then they came for video games…..

But Stan Lee is right.  Video games deserve similar free speech protections that comic books, movies, music, television, radio, books and so many other forms of entertainment enjoy.

So, what can you do to help in this fight?

Yesterday we ran an article about the Entertainment Consumers Association‘s Gamer Petition.  The ECA represents video game consumers, and is submitting an amicus brief in the court case.  Along side this amicus brief is the petition which shows California doesn’t speak for the people and there are folks who don’t agree with their law.  Even though lower courts across the country have agreed such laws are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will hopefully be settling this issue once and for all.

Sign the Gamer Petition, tell your friends, family, coworkers, yell out the window.  We need to speak out more than ever.

Full disclosure, we consult for the Entertainment Consumers Association

Care about Free Speech, Sign the Gamer Petition

Posted on by

Bookmark and Share

On April 26, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the state of California‘s petition for certiorari (cert) in Schwarzenegger v. EMA , the so-called “violent video game” case.  This will be the first time that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on any of the state laws attempting to restrict or ban certain video games. Until now, all such laws have been struck down by lower federal courts as unconstitutional restrictions on Free Speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The Court will hear oral arguments on November 2, 2010. At that time, the Court will also review all friends of the Court briefs (amicus briefs) that will put forth additional information for the Court to consider. The Entertainment Consumers Association will be submitting such a brief on behalf of American digital entertainment consumers and will be attaching the gamer petition.

Take action now, sign the petition and support free speech.

Full disclosure, we consult for the Entertainment Consumers Association