A California consumer group is using online game technology to protest skyrocketing costs, poor patient service and a cold shoulder from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).

Nurse Avenger, offered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, is played in first-person shooter style, allowing players to blast away at health insurance representatives who are drawn to look like mobsters. The idea is to keep the reps from reaching the patient's bed. If they do, they'll issue a denial of needed healthcare services and the player will lose a life. After five such denials, the player dies. If the player beats the game, he or she unlocks universal health care.
( Read more... )

Video games and a party - hey, sounds like a mini-E3!

In this case, however, the gamers at the party were also politicians.

Through a knowledgeable source, GamePolitics has learned that the ESA held a lobbying event for California legislators on Monday. ESA President Doug Lowenstein and the organization's General Counsel Gail Markels were among those who met with elected officials in Sacramento.

Following the meetings the ESA hosted a bash for state legislators, their staffs and families at a ballroom in downtown Sacramento. GP hears that about 150 people attended, enjoying refreshments and playing the E-rated likes of Dance Dance Revolution and a ping pong game (Rockstar's Table Tennis?) on monitors set up around the room.

We're not 100% sure it was Rockstar's game. It could have been a really early build of Nintendo's Wii Ping Pong, but we doubt it. Perhaps this was a way to show the assembled pols that Rockstar is capable of creating more than just GTA mayhem.
( Read more... )

One would-be video game regulator moved ahead in yesterday's California primary, while another fell by the wayside.

Leland Yee (D, seen at left), architect of California's video game sales law, grabbed 65% of the vote in yesterday's State Senate contest. His closest opponent, Mike Nevin, received only 29%. Running in a heavily-Democratic district, Yee is virtually assured a seat in the California State Senate come November's election.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo was hammered by former Governor and one-time presidential candidate Jerry Brown in the Democratic primary for California Attorney General. Delgadillo, who made headlines earlier this year when he filed deceptive marketing charges against Take-Two and Rockstar over the Hot Coffee scandal, received only 21% of the Democratic vote to Brown's overwhelming 78%.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

My wife always tells me, "GP, don't be so cynical."

Easier said than done, honey. When you're wading through the muck of the political arena day-in and day-out, it's tough to avoid looking at things with a slightly jaundiced eye. And, yes, I make her call me GP.

So why am I a cynic? Here are a couple of reasons:

In Oklahoma, Rep. Fred Morgan (R, seen at left) has succeeded in getting his video game legislation, HB3004, passed by both the House and Senate. It is now on its way to Gov. Brad Henry who seems likely to sign the bill into law.

As for Morgan, due to Oklahoma's term limits, he's currently staring at the end of his career in the State House. As part of his plan to reduce unemployment (his own), Morgan is running for Congress in his Oklahoma City district. He faces a July 25th primary. His campaign website, naturally, touts the video game bill.

And then there's Minnesota, where Rep. Jeff Johnson (R) has rammed through his own video game bill. Instead of the more traditional "Let the buyer beware" approach, let's call Johnson's measure "Let the buyer be scared," since the Assistant Majority Leader has turned the tables on typical video game legislation by making underage game consumers - not retailers - subject to civil fines for attempting to buy M-rated games like Halo 2 or The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion.

Did we mention that Johnson is running for Attorney General of Minnesota? His campaign site trumpets Johnson's testimony on video game violence before a U.S. Senate Judiciary sub-committee hearing chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in late March.

Morgan and Johnson aren't the only ones, of course. In California, Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee (D) faces a June primary in his bid for the State Senate. And of course, Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential aspirations are well known.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

If published reports are accurate, California's video game law will soon join those of Michigan and Illinois on the scrap heap of history.

Readers may recall that it was GamePolitics which broke the news that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign Assembly Speaker Leland Yee's bill into law on October 7th of last year. The video game industry protested on constitutional grounds, and Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction blocking the bill from taking effect on December 22nd.

Final arguments before Judge Whyte were held yesterday in San Jose. According to ABC-7 News, courtroom observers, trying to read the tea leaves during the hearing, felt the industry's First Amendment argument carried the day.

ABC-7 reports that Judge Whyte "appeared to side with the video game industry's position," citing the application of a legal standard known as "strict scrutiny," which offers the broadest free speech protection.

"It appears to me that the strict scrutiny standard does apply," Judge Whyte is reported to have said from the bench.
( Read more... )

A character dressed in black robes could hit E3 with a lightning bolt this week. But he's not a mage and this is no game.

The character is U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte, who on Friday will hear final arguments on California's 2005 video game law in a San Jose courtroom. The lightning bolt would come if hizzoner ruled against the video game industry's First Amendment challenge to the California legislation. Like many such bills, the law would restrict sales of M-rated games to minors. The state's video games bill was championed by California Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in October.

Judge Whyte, who in December issued a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect, will consider arguments in favor of the law from the California Attorney General's Office and in opposition from lawyers representing the game industry. If you'd like to read the state's latest submission in the case, click here. For the industry's position, here.

To date, the industry is batting a thousand with its First Amendment argument, including recent big wins in Illinois and Michigan. Based on that track record, as well as the fact that Judge Whyte already found enough problems with the California law to issue the temporary injunction, it seems likely that once again the industry will prevail.

Then again, you never know.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

Cookies, anyone?

The Frederick News-Post reports that Girl Scouts from around Maryland gathered at the state capitol last week to sit in on legislative sessions, meet delegates, and participate in a mock legislative debate.

And perhaps sell a few boxes of Thin Mints along the way?

As part of a program sponsored by the Maryland Girl Scout Legislative Coalition, two hundred scouts took to the House floor to get a first hand taste of the political process. The topic of the Girl Scouts' mock debate, fining adults who buy mature-rated games for their children, was peripherally related to Maryland's proposed video game legislation.

Scout Alexandra Asuncion of Frederick played the role of House Speaker, directing the debate.

"It was really fun," she said. "I liked it because you could see what it would be like to be the speaker."

Other girls scouts, acting as delegates, made some telling points from the House floor.

"What's the point of an adult getting a fine for buying it for their children when it was their choice?" argued seventh-grader Kendall Bille.
( Read more... )

Last week GamePolitics reported on remarks made by 77-year-old Lou Papan, who is campaigning against Leland Yee for a spot in the California State Senate.

Papan took a shot at Yee's highly-publicized game legislation, telling the San Mateo Daily Journal, "Quite frankly, video games aren't the most pressing issue in Sacramento right now."

Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin was quick to respond to Papan's attack on Yee's relevance, telling GamePolitics, "Clearly, Assemblymember Yee has been working on a number of issues besides protecting children from violent video games. In fact, he has passed 52 pieces of legislation in just 3 years, of which 38 have been chaptered into law under Governors Schwarzenegger and Davis."
( Read more... )

Gamers, Sean Bersell has your back.

Regular GP readers will recall Sean as the VP of public affairs for the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA), a plaintiff in the ongoing suit against California's video game law. Sean is also the 2006 chair of the Media Coalition, a First Amendment advocacy group.

GP has taken notice of Sean's response to a surprisingly ill-informed op-ed piece in the Glendale News-Press, a local California paper. It all started last week when the News-Press ran a column penned by Charles Unger, a criminal defense attorney and family therapist (odd combination, but we suppose it comes in handy for insanity defenses).

Despite his contention that, "When it comes to the 1st Amendment I am a pretty liberal guy," Unger made, for an attorney, some surprisingly ill-informed comments. Among them:

"I don't see how (California's video game law) is any different than having a movie be rated R to restrict entry."

"I can't imagine these games are doing the kids any good. When I was younger I remember my parents wondering what television would do to me since they had only radio and they had to use their imagination more than I did growing up."

"Skateboarding and violent video games; if there were to be a common thread among young patients I see, those are the two."

Riding to the rescue, Sean (more politely than GP might have) fired back with his own op-ed in the News-Press (which happens to be his hometown paper). Highlights include:
( Read more... )

There's an interesting nugget of information coming out of Florida. It concerns S 0492, the Florida video game legislation proposed by Republican State Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla (left).

A source familiar with the Florida bill told GamePolitics that Diaz de la Portilla's strategy will be to hold S 0492 in committee, pending the final result of the game industry's legal fight against California's video game law.

Why?

Florida's bill is modeled on the California legislation. Should Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte rule against the California law, Diaz de la Portilla's team will either shelve or revise S 0492. For now, the bill is safely parked with the state senate's Commerce and Consumer Services Committee.

By the way, GamePolitics recently suggested Florida as the key game legislation battleground state of 2006.

Here and there, if you read the tea leaves carefully, you'll find some criticism directed at the anti-game violence efforts of prominent politicians. Here are some recent samples in which the issue raised by critics concerns the relevance of game legislation in the overall political process:

Seattle University's Spectator Online tackles Hillary Clinton in a piece called "Time for a Democrat, but not Hillary."

The editorial reads, in part: "Though viewed as 'the liberal who could take us to victory,' even her position as a liberal is questionable. Much of Clinton's recent action has been to take measures against personal liberties. Her campaign against the violent video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a prime example. I know that simulated sex scenes in adult-oriented video games are probably the biggest threat to America at this point in time, and I'm certainly resting easier now that copies were pulled from shelves, but is this the mentality we want our leader to have?"

Meanwhile, in San Mateo, California, the Daily Journal reports on a tight race for a State Senate seat in the June Democratic primary. Assembly Speaker pro tem Leland Yee, architect of California's violent video game law, is facing tough competition from fellow Dems Lou Papan and Mike Nevin.

Papan is 77, but remains a political force in the contested district, which includes San Mateo and San Francisco. Nevin, 64, is a retired San Francisco police officer who has never held state office. Nonetheless, the Daily Journal thinks Yee, 57, may struggle in the primary.

Papan took a shot at Yee's highly-publicized game legislation, telling the newspaper, "Quite frankly, video games aren't the most pressing issue in Sacramento right now."

Taking time off from his battles with the Florida Bar Association, Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome, and, of course, satellite shock jock Howard Stern, Miami activist attorney Jack Thompson has returned to an old, familiar target, 25 to Life.

Eidos' cops-and-robbers shooter is due for release soon, with numerous sources reporting that 25 to Life has gone gold. Thompson's assault on the game comes in the form of a letter to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in which he urges Lockyer to block the release of the game under the state's public nuisance law. Of perhaps more concern to civil libertarians, Thompson also offers an opinion that police officers can seize copies of the game without a warrant. The following passages are included in his message to A.G. Lockyer:

"Additionally, please know that California Civil Code Section 3495 enables and authorizes each and every law enforcement officer to walk into any video game store, without a court order, to seize and destroy each and every copy of 25 to Life. California law treats this as acceptable 'abatement' of a public nuisance by parties particularly endangered by such a nuisance."

"In the next six days I intend to take to the public airwaves in California, and to use other means, to encourage all law enforcement officers in California to in fact go into video game stores and seize all copies of 25 to Life."

GP: Last year there was talk of a pending civil suit against 25 to Life but Thompson hasn't mentioned taking such action this time around. We did confirm in September of 2005 that Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS), a national support organization for the families of slain police officers, was planning a suit against 25 to Life with Thompson as their lead attorney.

Lawsuits are one thing, but Thompson's contention that police officers can walk into retail stores and simply remove copies of the game is ludicrous. No rational police officer would take such an action as it would subject them to civil and criminal liability.

Thompson floated this idea to GP late last year. Frankly, we found it so off-the-wall that we declined to cover it at the time unless Thompson could indicate for the record that he had the backing of one or more actual law enforcement agencies or professional organizations. That information was not forthcoming. We are mentioning it now because Thompson has widely disseminated copies of today's letter to Attorney General Lockyer in which he advocates this police state tactic.

...and it is Leland Yee, California Assembly Speaker pro tem.

Because Yee has been a game industry critic, this is a choice that many in the gaming community won't like. As a longtime gamer, GP understands that viewpoint.

Leland Yee has, after all, been outspoken against video game violence. He is also the architect of his state's controversial video game law. That law, by the way, originally scheduled to go into effect on New Year's Day, was recently blocked via preliminary injunction by federal court Judge Ronald Whyte. The injunction indicates Judge Whyte believes the law is likely to be struck down on constitutional grounds. But whether California's game statute ultimately survives or not, Leland Yee was clearly the dominant political figure on the video game scene in 2005.

Unlike some other politicians who jumped on the bandwagon, Yee is no johnny-come-lately to video game content issues. Following the defeat of a similar bill in 2004, the licensed child psychologist once again introduced video game legislation into the California Assembly. And while GamePolitics doesn't see legislation as the answer, we can't help but admire the deft touch and political savvy displayed by Yee in guiding his bill though the complex legislative process. But Yee had help. Fate, fueled by Hot Coffee, played a huge role in percolating California's video game legislation.

So Leland Yee was both lucky and good in 2005. How lucky? How good?

There were at least two distinct points in 2005 when the California video game bill appeared to be dead in the water. In May Yee was one vote short of getting the bill out of the Assembly's Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media. With a do-or-die vote looming, Yee engineered the makeup of the committee to ensure a green light.

In June Yee hoped to bring the measure to a vote on the Assembly floor. However a head count clearly showed his bill would be defeated, and he pulled it from the Assembly's agenda. At that point Yee's bill was stalled.

And then Hot Coffee exploded onto the scene - lucky for Yee, disastrous for the video game industry. Whatever one's views on the GTA San Andreas scandal, from a political perspective, Leland Yee recognized the possibilities, becoming the first political figure to speak out on the issue. The domino effect he touched off in Sacramento continued all the way to Washington, D.C. where no less a political star than Hillary Clinton added her voice.

How important was Hot Coffee? As Yee said during an October podcast interview with GamePolitics, "The industry did this to themselves. This bill was stuck in the Assembly, was not going anywhere... and then the Hot Coffee thing came out... it created a lot of suspicion about whether or not the industry could regulate itself."
( Read more... )

Shades of George W. complaining about "activist judges..."

Writing for the conservative Pardon My English, blogger Rich Vos isn't happy with federal court judges in Illinois, California and Michigan who have granted preliminary injunctions blocking video game laws from taking effect in those states. In the case of Illinois, the law itself has already been ruled unconstitutional.

Vos writes, "This month, for the sixth time in five years, an unelected judge struck down legislation fining businesses that rented or sold violent or mature video games to minors..."

While arguments about game legislation often express concern about the "slippery slope" effect of selective censorship, Vos has his own - rather dubious - slippery slope argument in mind:

"The legal precedent... is damaging to children and families nationwide. A decision like this could be used in further cases to make the claim that renting and selling pornography to minors should be protected under the amendment as well... With the deterioration of moral legislation, tobacco and alcohol might soon be allowed in the hands of children."

Nor does Vos think much of the First Amendment rights of minors.

"...Minors are unable to vote, own property, stay out past curfew, imbibe alcohol, be executed for a crime, enlist in the armed forces (without parental consent), and smoke cigarettes, among others. If these 'partial-citizens' don't have the right to influence law through a vote, it is plausible to claim they should not have the right to buy violent or sexual video games without parental consent."

Vos seems not to realize that all of the video game legislation signed into law in 2005 was proposed and guided by Democrats when he writes:

"It also seems as appropriate to mention the strategy of liberals in America. Instead of influencing the representatives that make laws, they subvert the judicial system to find a way to see their crazy ideologies carried out. In cases such as VSDA v. Schwarzenegger, liberals strike down legislation approved by the masses... It is in the best interest of families that children not get their hands on the figurative matches to start a firestorm of violence and sexual debauchery."

While the video game industry is thanking Judge Ronald Whyte for an early holiday present, widely varied reactions continue to pour in.

The San Jose Mercury-News quotes attorney Cathy Kirkman, who writes the excellent Silicon Valley Media Law blog, as saying, "It's clear that this is really important to a lot of people in society. Even though they've been striking out in court, it doesn't appear they are folding up the tent at all on the issue."

Kirkman also told the Mercury-News that the California law faces an uphill battle, but pointed out that advocates can keep trying legislation, particularly if researchers find clearer links between violent video game content and actual youth violence. Such a progression of research ultimately showed causal links between smoking and serious health issues.

"They didn't get it the first time, Kirkman said, "but over time the evidence becomes sufficiently compelling."

In the San Francisco Chronicle, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said, "We're disappointed but not surprised. Everyone agrees this is a statute that affects First Amendment rights and these cases are subject to careful review by the courts. We believe the statute is narrowly crafted to restrict children's access to uniquely explicit materials and that is justified by the Constitution."

In the same article, a spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "This is just the first step in what is certain to be a lengthy legal proceeding. Once the state is able to present evidence in the case, the courts will have the opportunity to understand why the governor and Legislature believe the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from potential harm from exposure to extremely violent video games."

A staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation told the Los Angeles Times that Judge Whyte's ruling was not surprising. "It brings into question whether this is really the best use of the state's resources to constantly put up these clearly unconstitutional laws, only to have them challenged and thrown out," said Kurt Opsahl. "It does seem to be one in this series of: law passes, gets challenged, gets struck down. Rinse, lather, repeat."

"Technology will wipe away this issue in the next five years," said EA VP Jeff Brown. "The new consoles from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will all have parental controls so that game systems are far beyond television and DVDs in the ability they give to parents to restrict content."

If you would like to read the 17-page ruling by federal court Judge Ronald Whyte, you can grab it here...

It should be a great debate!

A panel discussion at the upcoming Game Developers Conference in March will feature voices both for and against video game legislation.

"Murder, Sex and Censorship: Debating the Morals of Creative Freedom" will be an hour-long discussion on the issues relating to game content, censorship and legislation.

GP: Just an hour, guys? This debate could rage for days...

Speakers include California Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee, architect of his state's video game law; Jason Della Rocca, Executive Director of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA); Brenda Brathwaite, game designer and chair of the IGDA's Sex & Games Special Interest Group; James Paul Gee, Professor, University of Wisconsin and author of What Video Game Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy and Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul.

From the session description:

"In the last year, over a dozen bills targeting video games were put before state Assemblies and Senates throughout America. In other countries, video games were banned outright. Legislators seek to control their sale and their distribution. They complain the industry is out of control and ratings do not work. And in the wake of the Hot Coffee scandal, we face irate politicians and the FTC... again.
( Read more... )

Another major court battle looms for the video game industry.

Later today a federal court judge in San Jose will hear arguments on request by the ESA and VSDA for a preliminary injunction that would block California's game violence law from taking effect on January 1st.

If you'd like you can read the game industry's motion. You can see the California Attorney General's response to the preliminary injunction request here.

Readers may recall that Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Leland Yee (D-SF) was the architect of the legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 7th.

As always, GamePolitics will bring you the breaking news on this important case.

The next twelve days may well decide the fate of video game laws passed earlier this year in Illinois, Michigan and California.

In Illinois, a knowledgeable source has told GamePolitics that, based on statements from the bench made by Federal Judge Matthew Kennelly, it is expected the judge will find the state's ban on sale or rental of violent games to minors unconstitutional.

Kennelly will also rule on labeling and signage issues regarding violent games. GP's source believes the labeling requirement will also fail on a constitutional basis, since it relies on the same "scientific" evidence as the sales restrictions portion of the bill. As reported previously on GamePolitics, Judge Kennelly's comments during the November 16th hearing indicated that he did not find the state's evidence persuasive.

In Michigan, the state has until December 9th to appeal a preliminary injunction issued by Federal Judge George Caram Steeh .

Also on December 9th, the video game industry will be in Federal District Court in San Jose to request a preliminary injunction blocking California's video game law from taking effect on January 1st.