Categories
SIGN THE PETITION!
For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.
It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.
Over this summer, we’ll be drafting and formally submitting our amicus brief, which will be included with the other official court documents related to the case. Separately, we will also attach a petition signed by you, the American public, which –by its very existence – will publicly define who the consumers of interactive entertainment are and why we care enough about the issue to take the time to make the effort to speak up and make our voices heard. The petition establishes an authoritative collective position which cannot be redefined by detractors nor co-opted by others. And it enshrines each and every signatory’s participation in the court documents and in the U.S. National Archives’ official records related to the case.
If you’re an American gamer, and you care about gaming and your rights, stand up and be counted; sign the petition today!
http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.
It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.
Over this summer, we’ll be drafting and formally submitting our amicus brief, which will be included with the other official court documents related to the case. Separately, we will also attach a petition signed by you, the American public, which –by its very existence – will publicly define who the consumers of interactive entertainment are and why we care enough about the issue to take the time to make the effort to speak up and make our voices heard. The petition establishes an authoritative collective position which cannot be redefined by detractors nor co-opted by others. And it enshrines each and every signatory’s participation in the court documents and in the U.S. National Archives’ official records related to the case.
If you’re an American gamer, and you care about gaming and your rights, stand up and be counted; sign the petition today!
http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781
Comments
signed
Thank you, sir.
LOL @ JAKE!
That was quite funny, sir. Been a gamer most of my life. These attempts at restricting video games only tend to increase sales, much like what the PMRC did for music sales. Slap a warning label on there and it sells better. LOL
No, I really do think cigarettes will be completely banned within my lifetime. They are already well over 8.00 a pack here with another tax increase due to hit in late October. I wish I'd never picked them up.
I partially agree with ya Shaner. They WILL tax them into oblivion. I also agree they kill people but in the same breath they haven't outlawed guns, knives, sticks, chains, idiot drivers, etc. I don't think the fact that a substance kills people is their motivation for all the extra taxes. I think it's because they know they have an addicted group of people that will buy them no matter the cost. It seems like they are preying on the weak to me. Oh yeah, I'm one of the weak ones.........