Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. Oral Arguments

For those interested in the (to be decided) Supreme Court case in which California claims that content-based restrictions on expression (video games) are constitutional, you can download the oral arguments. Popular bits include whether the State’s legal logic would also let it restrict Grimm‘s fairy tales, how censors panic about every new media type, whether there are established community norms for violence, and if it matters whether video game violence is against humans or if Vulcans are close enough. SCOTUSblog has assorted briefs from the case.

Personally, I am expecting a crushing defeat for California, and it is embarrassing that content-based restrictions on expression can still make it as far as the Supreme Court. I understand the political reasons why several state attorneys general jumped on the case with amicus briefs, and I am further embarrassed for my culture that seemed like a winning political issue for them. I know that some of them are not returning to office after last week’s election, but I cannot believe that many of them lost on free speech grounds.

: Zubon

H/T: Volokh

4 thoughts on “Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. Oral Arguments”

  1. Good luck California I hope they win. I would be delighted if the video games industry had to move lock stock and barrel to London after the USA criminalises fun.

    It would be great for our economy and us Brits would get games cheaper and have better developer representation on the EU forums.

    So hooray for Arnie. Don’t let them tell you there’s anything hypocritical about making yourself famous by playing Terminator and Conan then taking a stance against violence in the media.

  2. Can’t argue with the hypocrisy of Arnie’s role in this, but I’m entirely in favor of tighter regulation of all media. The best art comes from the tightest restrictions. This doesn’t look well thought through, though.

Comments are closed.