Schwarzenegger v. EMA: Things that happened

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the case for and against government legislation on so-called “violent” videogames in Schwarzenegger v. EMA. You can read the full transcript of the arguments right here. The basic message, however, seems to be that California isn’t going to achieve anything other than wasting money that its broke ass can’t afford to lose. 

California appeared to underestimate just how savvy the Justices were, with Justice Scalia raising the point that seemed to typify the entire case: “Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth … Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?”

To be fair, the EMA itself got some tough questions about how to display mature videogames, but the hearing suggests that the flimsiness of California’s argument was exposed. It’s very easy to argue against videogames on FOX News where an opposing viewpoint won’t be heard, but when the anti-game campaigners are actually forced to debate their beliefs, the vagueness and general ignorance of their stance is plain for all to see. 

The proposed California law is based in assumption and patently untrustworthy “research” that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While it’s still far too early to call this, you’ll forgive me if I put my gloating shoes on ahead of time.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the case for and against government legislation on so-called “violent” videogames in Schwarzenegger v. EMA. You can read the full transcript of the arguments right here. The basic message, however, seems to be that California isn’t going to achieve anything other than wasting money that its broke ass can’t afford to lose. 

California appeared to underestimate just how savvy the Justices were, with Justice Scalia raising the point that seemed to typify the entire case: “Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth … Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?”

To be fair, the EMA itself got some tough questions about how to display mature videogames, but the hearing suggests that the flimsiness of California’s argument was exposed. It’s very easy to argue against videogames on FOX News where an opposing viewpoint won’t be heard, but when the anti-game campaigners are actually forced to debate their beliefs, the vagueness and general ignorance of their stance is plain for all to see. 

The proposed California law is based in assumption and patently untrustworthy “research” that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While it’s still far too early to call this, you’ll forgive me if I put my gloating shoes on ahead of time.

Jim Sterling