Archive for the ‘Violence’ Category
Posted by Dan on
December 13, 2009
Michael Atkinson, the rabidly anti-gaming Attorney General for South Australia, completely crossed the line into outright censorship in defending his decision to refuse ratings classification to Aliens vs. Predator, essentially banning the game. While the AG has long been the sole obstacle towards Australia gaining an 18+ mature game rating, he has always couched his arguments in that tired trope, think of the children.
Until now. Atkinson now believes that he should be the sole arbiter of what games you get to play on purely moral grounds. He recently proclaimed “You don’t need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people.”
Atkinson’s hypocrisy really knows no bounds. On the one hand, he says “This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society. It’s the public interest versus the small vested interest,” but on the other hand, he himself is the small vested interest that is imposing his will on the broad public. How many millions of dollars has Atkinson cost the Australian economy, by lowering sales of “altered” games like L4D2 (sending further sales overseas), or forcing publishers that show a backbone to outright refuse to sell in Australia?
Atkinson outright admits that the problem he forsees doesn’t even exist yet. “I accept that 98 per cent, 99 per cent of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 per cent to 2 per cent could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence,” ….note the emphasis. Could. Not “have”.
Despite the fact that Australians are allowed to watch violent movies with an 18+ classification, games unfortunately don’t get the same treatment. Unfortunate for the industry as a whole, not just Australians.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
October 19, 2009
Most attempts by state legislatures to censor the game industry involve statutes which prohibit the distribution of ”violent video games” to minors. However, these statutes have invariably been stricken down by federal courts because they sought to restrict distribution of games, the contents of which fell into a category of speech (violence) that is protected under the First Amendment and the respective states could not show the requisite danger of imminent lawless action that the First Amendment requires in order to restrict speech that is protected(1). Very recently in VSDA v. Schwarzenegger, the Ninth Circuit struck down one such statute for that reason(2). Through this and other examples, we see that courts are loathe to create new categories of unprotected speech, or to expand the categories that are already unprotected(3). On October 6th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in US v. Stevens, which challenges the Constitutional validity of a federal statute that prohibits the creation, sale, and possession of depictions animal cruelty. Due to the insight into the new Court roster’s attitudes on First Amendment issues that Stevens will offer, we are watching closely. Hit the jump for an in-depth analysis. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 23% [?]
Posted by Dan on
May 20, 2009
The State of California has appealed their loss in the VSDA case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for a grant of writ of certiorari on the following questions:
1. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?
2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?
(see pet. for cert. here in .pdf format)
In response, the EMA (formerly the VSDA) had this press release:
Statement of Sean Bersell, Vice President – Public Affairs, Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Video Software Dealers Association), on the decision of the state of California to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of the court ruling finding California’s video game restriction law unconstitutional:
“It boggles the mind that, on a day when the state of California finds itself in the worst fiscal crisis it has ever faced and is considering massive layoffs of teachers and cuts to public services, the state would choose to waste tens of thousands of dollars on pursuing this frivolous appeal.
“This law was found by two lower courts, relying on long-established legal precedents, to be unconstitutional as an infringement of the First Amendment. There have been eight similar laws enacted around the nation this decade and every single one has been found unconstitutional on similar grounds. There is no reason to expect a different outcome in the Supreme Court.
“So far, this case has cost the state of California approximately $400,000 just in legal fees and court costs that it has had to pay the plaintiffs. This doesn’t even include the state’s legal fees and costs. And if this appeal is unsuccessful, as it will be in all likelihood, the state will owe the plaintiffs even more in legal fees and court costs.
“The taxpayers of California should demand that their elected officials stop wasting precious tax dollars on this quixotic quest.”
For background on the VSDA v. Schwarzenegger case, please see http://www.entmerch.org/schwarzenneger.html.
I’m putting my money on the court either denying cert, or granting for a summary decision. Neither of the questions are substantial points of law that SCOTUS should need to make a decision on; they’re both well settled in VSDA/EMA’s favor, under SCOTUS precedent. Furthermore, there are to my knowledge no circuit splits on the questions that would prompt SCOTUS to make a ruling. Finally, even if they did, the second question in the petition is partially irrelevant to the outcome because even if no direct causal link was required, the law was facially unable to meet strict scrutiny anyway. For these reasons, I’m willing to bet that the court will either deny cert, or summarily uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision. We’ll keep you updated as we hear more.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Posted by Eric on
May 4, 2009
Ahh, I love the smell of Cease and Desist notices in the morning. According to WoW Insider, Blizzard has started to send out notices to all WoW iPhone application makers that utilize Blizzard’s Armory website (a site that allows players to see stats and equipment from their characters, as well as any other), instructing them to take down their apps or else.
A couple of things to note on this action. First, these WoW apps have been on the store for a quite awhile now. With the first ones arguably coming right after the introduction of the App Store 10 months ago. Second, Blizzard’s actions come on the heels of a recent video floating around the web showing that the WoW maker may have an official app coming soon on the iPhone that will allow gamers to actually play the MMO on their phone. Finally, Blizzard already has one official iPhone app in the store, so they could just be trying to uphold their IP rights and clear out any confusion.
In any case, it’s always a little sad having to report on the strong hammer of business taking out small developers not really intruding on the market of the big guy (yet). We’ll keep you posted on further developments.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Posted by Dan on
April 3, 2009
At long last, we’ve found video footage from my panel at PAX 08, entitled “Legal Issues in Contemporary Games”. Thanks to Youtube user pipedreamer for getting it uploaded!
The video is split into 4 parts, the first of which can be found here. Note that the 2nd part is mislabeled “part 1″ as well, but differs in that it has Tom Buscaglia in the first frame (the actual part 1 has myself and Ross Dannenberg in the first frame). Parts 3 and 4 are labeled as normal.
Link: Part 1
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted under
1st Amendment,
DMCA,
Games,
Intellectual Property,
Jack Thompson v. Florida Bar Association,
Law,
Lawsuits,
MDY Industries v. Blizzard,
Policy,
VSDA v. Schwarzenegger,
Violence
Posted by Dan on
April 1, 2009
Gamepolitics has a spectacular interview with Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, regarding the Jack Thompson bill (HB353) and subsequent veto. Here’s a clip:
GP: You’ve come under severe criticism from Jack Thompson in recent days in regard to the video game bill vetoed by Gov. Huntsman last week. Can you comment?
Shurtleff: Well, I just consider the source. I don’t take what Jack Thompson says – give it much credence. This latest demand that I prosecute certain crimes shows me that he knows about as much about criminal law as he does about constitutional law…
The AG shows a remarkable understanding of our industry, and is one of the rare politicians that actually understands the ESRB. Again from the article:
GP: In recent years, you have had a friendly relationship with the video game industry. You did a public service announcement for the ESRB in 2006 and, in 2008, the ESA donated money to your campaign.
Shurtleff: My attitude is there’s a great rating system. I feel very strongly that the ESRB rating system works. It’s something that every parent ought to know about. And let me make it very clear that, while our officers and prosecutors didn’t think we could prosecute someone for selling Grand theft Auto IV, I certainly would strongly recommend against any parent letting their kids play the game. I don’t let my kids play it. Parents ought to be parents when it comes to games like that.
The full interview is available here.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 25, 2009
Everyone thought they had it figured out. But to the surprise of some, Gov. Jon Huntsman has vetoed Jack Thompson’s Truth in Advertising Act amendments. Rumor has it that the legislature will try to override the veto, but that remains to be seen.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 17, 2009
With all the recent discussion about Sony voluntarily pulling ads for Killzone 2 that were near schools in Toronto, questions have been raised about where American law stands on advertisements near schools–despite the lack of government action (or even the applicability of the United States Constitution) in this scenario. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 14% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 13, 2009
Due to the amendment of HB 353 in the Utah Senate, it was sent back down to the House of Representatives for a new vote. After little fanfare, the House concurred with the Senate’s amendments. The bill is complete, and must now be signed into law by Utah Governor Huntsman. Not knowing much about him, it is difficult to predict whether he will veto or not. Time will tell.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 13, 2009
After more debate and yet another shameful playing of the kid-shoots-cop-after-playing-GTA card, Jack Thompson’s Utah bill that would allow a civil cause of action against retailers who sell M-rated games to minors contrary to their advertising policies was passed 25 to 4. However, because the bill was amended, it will be sent back to the House for further proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
