Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who unexpectedly died at the age of 79 today, will be remembered as one of the most polarizing figures in American government, famous, or perhaps infamous, for his strong conservative stances on abortion, campaign finance, the death penalty and gay marriage. On June 27, 2011, he…
I have two stand-out Election Day video game memories. One involves Fable II. The other involves a highlight of my career: going to the Supreme Court on November 2, 2010, to see a gaming industry lawyer argue—successfully—that games deserve the protection of the First Amendment.
Justice Elena Kagan [back row, far right], whom Stephen Totilo said "did seem to get it" during oral arguments in Brown v. EMA, called the case the most difficult of the Court's most recent term, one in which she felt she was constantly in the wrong no matter her current state of mind.
Now that the smoke has cleared and the video game industry stands triumphant over the state of California in the Supreme Court battle over making it a crime to sell violent games to minors, the Entertainment Software Association needs to pay its lawyers. Why hello there, California taxpayers.
I have not confirmed this, but I believe that you would not be allowed to keynote a climate change conference if you hadn't sweated in the past 25 years.
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court put to rest, perhaps finally, the debate over not only whether video games are protected speech, but whether they are art.
Whether you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling against a California law against violent video games, today, you should know that strong arguments were made on both sides.
The Supreme Court sided with the video game industry today, declaring a victor in the six-year legal match between the industry and the California lawmakers who wanted to make it a crime for anyone in the state to sell extremely violent games to kids.with the creation of and a spate of school…
Monday will be a day that could radically change the status of video games in the United States. We're expecting the Supreme Court of the United States to finally issue a ruling, based on arguments they (and we) heard back in November, about whether the state of California can make it a crime to sell extremely violent…
When the mainstream debate turns to violent video games, it's inevitable that someone will dredge up Postal. It's like the triple dog dare, or comparing someone to Hitler, a completely bogus trump card with no real argumentative value.
A Gallup survey conducted over the weekend finds that while Americans believe the greatest responsibility for keeping violent games out of children's hands lies with parents, they aren't opposed to the government stepping in to help.
This morning's Supreme Court hearing about video games was full of feisty exchanges about free speech and protecting kids. Plus, we got a Mortal Kombat reference. Some highlights.
Oral arguments were heard this morning in the Supreme Court case regarding California's violent video game law, and Stephen Totilo was on the scene to get reactions from California Senator Leland Yee and video game industry lawyer Paul Smith.
The Supreme Court justices appeared highly skeptical of the State of California's arguments today that certain violent video games should be illegal to buy, questioning whether such exceptions would need to be applied to rap music and even Grimm's fairy tales.
People started lining up at 5 a.m. today in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for a chance to hear arguments in a landmark case that will decide whether video games should be afforded First Amendment protection.
The United States Supreme Court building, Monday night. We'll be inside on Tuesday, covering the Court's first case about video games. It pits California against the game industry over a law that would make the sale of very violent games to kids illegal.
The United States Supreme Court hears its first ever case about video games this week. The stakes are high. Here's what is happening and why it's happening.
This year marks the first anniversary of a Supreme Court fantasy league that a recent law school graduate from Virginia is running online. Participants try to accurately guess all nine justices' votes, collecting badges and achievements for their performance.