EMA v The Governator

EMA v The Governator

CSU Cauldron

Date: 11/4/2011 MK

Cue techno background music…cue announcer. Ahem, MORTAL KOMBAT!!!! Today’s bout was a knock-down dragged-out street fight featuring The Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenneger (et al) against The Entertainment Merchants Association, or EMA (et al) with special guest referees, the nine Supreme Court Justices; Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Associate Justices, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and finally Clarence Thomas. In one corner, representing The Governator and his constituents, Zackery P Morazzini, ESQ faced off against Paul M Smith, ESQ in behalf of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

You may be asking what’s actually at stake as a result of this decision. The matter before the court is the constitutionality of a California law banning the sale of video games to minors. The current case stems from the approval of a California law created in 2005 that would make retailers who sell or rent ‘violent’ video games to anyone under the age of 18 subject to up to a $1000 fine. Opponents to the law argue that it restricts free speech and is unnecessary on the basis that all video games that are released already contain ratings pertaining to age and content appropriateness. This law was overturned in 2007, as it infringes on free speech, with the same ruling being upheld in 2009. So in short, this hearing would potentially take away the right/opportunity/ chance to take away a decision which should solely rest on the shoulders of parents.

The official transcript of the proceedings is available online, and after reading, looked just about as vicious and intense as one would expect on an episode of Jerry Springer. Albeit a well informed and thought out episode, without all of the audience screaming or fights breaking out. So really nothing like an episode of Jerry, maybe it would be more akin to a much more captivating episode of C-Span. The arguments were brought forward on both sides eloquently, and from the looks of it, there was no clear victor, even if the court was much less forgiving to The Governator’s cause than the EMA’s.

From the outset, the court took issue with deviant and established norms of violence, referencing Grimm’s fairy tales as quite grim and violent (not sure if the pun was intended). They also questioned why video games were being singled out as the proverbial witch to be set ablaze, without a definite answer. The court was also aware that whenever a new technology or medium has arrived, it has been subject to similar scrutiny, if not to the extent of video games simply for being interactive.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court was any more forgiving or accepting to the counsel for the EMA. He was questioned on the potential for a lesser law pertaining to the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, which he did not adequately lay out. Another point of contention was the definition of ‘obscenity’

This decision could also have far reaching ramifications if the court finds in favor of The Governator; from censorship of the creative video game creation process to these restrictions leading to other media to exerting unfair legal and financial pressure on store clerks, and finally to retailers discontinuing to carry certain games altogether. None of these potential things are good for gamers of any age, or society as a whole. Unfortunately this decision is out of our hands and has been left up to the Supreme Court, who will reach a decision between now and next June. I know I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed on this one, as I don’t believe the government has the right to single out this medium over any other medium containing violence. We cannot declare a clear victor until the ref’s have reviewed the play and awarded points accordingly. I know I’m pulling for the EMA.