Comments on: Pending Supreme Court Case US v. Stevens Has Implications for the Game Industry

By: JDKJ

JDKJ — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:39:37 +0000

I spoke with Leland Yee’s Office. They claim (believably so) to have no knowledge as to why California’s Petition has gone into limbo but speculate that the Court awaits its own decision in another First Amendment case (the name of which they couldn’t recall off the head-top but which I presume is U.S. v. Stevens).

By: Adrian Lopez

Adrian Lopez — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:32:28 +0000

The law at issue in Stevens mentions “a living animal … intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed”. The question, then, is whether the law should be interpreted as applying to the speech itself (where the mere depiction is enough to satisfy the law, whether or not actual abuse took place) or as applying only to dealing in materials derived from real-life abuse, and whether it should or should not apply to those who are not themselves responsible for the animal abuse but are instead only dealing in materials that others have created.

As always, the ultimate implications depend on how careful the judges are in choosing their language. Since the law in question involves living animals, I doubt it will have much impact on video games.

By: Liz Surette

Liz Surette — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:58:36 +0000

The Court will take action eventually, whether it is to grant or deny cert. It will just take awhile longer.

Adrian, if they were to rule against Stevens and hold that the statute is constitutional, then that would mean they are willing to create new categories of unprotected speech. The reason that content-based restrictions on video game sales to minors have failed to pass muster so far is because “violent” material is not unprotected by the First Amendment, and therefore it’s much harder for a state or the federal government to show that the statute does not offend the First Amendment. As for your point about fictional/simulated vs. actual depictions, adult obscenity (which states like CA try to analogize extreme violence to) does not require that the depictions involve actual people.

By: Adrian Lopez

Adrian Lopez — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:35:38 +0000

Unless the Stevens decision ends up so broad that it applies to fictional depictions of animal cruelty, I fail to see how a decision against Stevens would end up harming the game industry. Even if the court decides against Stevens, as long as the decision is narrowly tailored such that content producers must somehow be complicit in real-life animal abuse to be found guilty under the law the game industry will be fine.

By: BearDogg-X

BearDogg-X — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:09:37 +0000

Could the similarities of VSDA(EMA) v. Schwarzenegger to U.S. v. Stevens be why the Supreme Court has not taken action on California’s appeal yet?

The last action taken on California’s appeal was being on the Sept. 29th long conference.