The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

Yesterday, the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to protect the free speech rights of videogame creators and users and asking the justices to uphold a ruling throwing out unconstitutional restrictions on violent videogames. At issue is a California law that bans the sale or rental of "violent" videogames to anyone under the age of 18, among other regulations. While the law was passed in 2005, it has never taken effect, as courts have repeatedly ruled it unconstitutional. California appealed its loss at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The case is Schwarzenegger vs. EMA.

This case has profound ramifications for the future of not just videogames, but all media, and the Internet as well. Although we've had 15 years of fairly solid Supreme Court case law on new media issues, a loss in the Schwarzenegger case could reverse that tide. In the amicus brief, we explain how the current videogame content rating system empowers parents to make their own decisions without unconstitutionally restricting this new and evolving form of free speech. Our brief is focused on three major arguments:

Parental Control Tools, Household Media Control Methods, Self-Regulation and Enforcement of Existing Laws Constitute Less Restrictive Means of Limiting Access to Objectionable Content than Government Regulation of Constitutionally Protected Speech

Videogame Content is Constitutionally Protected Speech Deserving Strict Scrutiny

The State Has Not Established a Compelling Government Interest in Restricting the Sale of Videogames to Minors

The filing can be found online here and it is embedded down below. As always, the Media Coalition has done an outstanding job summarizing the case and listing all the major briefs filed with the Court in this matter, so check out their Schwarzenegger v. EMA page for everything you need to know about this case. GamePolitics.com also offers excellent ongoing coverage of the case.

There are few things I find more annoying in the Net neutrality wars than the silly assertion by groups like Free Press and other regulatory radicals that "Net neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment." It's utter rubbish as I have documented here many times before. But now Sen. Al Franken is running around sputtering such nonsense, as he did in this recent CNN.com editorial, claiming that "Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time." The folks at CNN invited me to response and below you will find the piece PFF press director Mike Wendy and I submitted.

____________

"Big Government the Real Threat to Internet"

by Adam Thierer & Mike Wendy

In his recent CNN.com opinion piece, "Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time," Sen. Al Franken claims that "our free speech rights are under assault -- not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America."

He alludes to potential corporate blocking of online products and speech and says, "If that scares you as much as it scares me, then you need to care about net neutrality."

Chicken Little, call your office!

Such sky-is-falling scare tactics are all too common in the heated debate over net neutrality regulation, but actual evidence of such nefarious corporate scheming is nowhere to be found. Perhaps that's why Franken resorts to such tall tales.

Moreover, his reading of the First Amendment is at odds with the one most of us learned about in civics class ("Congress shall make no law..."). His would empower regulators by converting the First Amendment from a shield against government action into a sword that bureaucrats could wield against private industry.

Pub Interest Groups Decry Sunlight - Say It's Corrupting FCC Net Neutrality Process

techdirt's hit kind of a new low in the divisive Net Neutrality debate. Mike Masnick writes that the telcos have got their Net Neutrality deal with the FCC because, well, they have some mighty deep pockets, and they're prepared to use them - either for-or-agin the Dems - come election season. Consequently, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski had no choice but to back down from his Net Neutrality / Reclassification madness and give the big boys what they want.

C'mon, Mike! You make the National Enquirer blush.

The "reporting" follows the well worn meme espoused by the Left that when the going gets tough, and the deal looks like it ain't cutting their way - then blame the "monopolists" for corrupting the process. Good lord, get a new riff already.

Free Press, Public Knowledge, MAP and OIC lobbyists (among other "reformistas") have practically installed themselves at the FCC since day one (I think I saw their cots, bedrolls and toiletries there the other day). To claim that they've been left-out strains credulity (as this FCC blog reveals).

Let's see. They've gotten their lobbying dollar's worth out of the Open Internet / Net Neutrality NPRM; the National Broadband Plan; the Wireless Competition Report; the Third Way Statement; the Third Way NOI; the 706 Report; and have supped at the FCC table throughout the "closed-door" Net Neutrality meetings.

Compromise will happen. It should. This is a highly charged debate that has divided many. The FCC hasn't helped any by trying to avoid the will of Congress, end-running around key court decisions, and attempting to jam an innovation-killing rule down the throats of American broadband consumers.

Though I think the Commission is wrong to try to regulate the Internet through broadband Reclassification, I also recognize that some discussion - possibly one that reaches compromise - should occur.

What I do not think is helpful is the idea, seemingly shared by the public interest groups, that "it's our way or no way; and if you get in the way of that - then you're a corrupt SOB."

Mike, remember the elementary school admonition - "sticks and stones..."? I'll bet the network providers do, and it's helped them keep their eye on the ball to ensure that a reasoned ruling comes out of the FCC.

The opposite would be corrupt - a closed process decided by a small handful of elite, "consumer advocates," impervious to reason, debate or the sunlight of opposing viewpoints. Until this summer, it looked like it was going in this direction. Now, thankfully, the process appears to be more inclusive - one which may result in a more fair outcome for all involved.

The always-excellent Wall Street Journal "Information Age" columnist L. Gordon Crovitz has another editorial worth reading today, which builds on the Second Circuit's recent decision to reverse FCC content regulation for broadcasting. In "The Technology of Decency," Crovitz explains "parents don't need the FCC to protect their children." "Technology makes it easier to block seven or any number of dirty words," he notes. "Taking the FCC out of regulating indecency might just lead to more decency by refocusing responsibility where it belongs: on broadcasters and parents."

That's a point I've hammered on her in the past and in all my work on parental empowerment solutions, including my book, "Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods." Indeed, there has never been a time in our nation's history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what is acceptable in their homes and in the lives of their children. And, luckily, poll after poll shows that parents are stepping up to the plate and taking on that responsibility (contrary to what some policymakers in Washington imply).

Moreover, legally speaking, Crovitz shows why the old rationales for regulating broadcasting differently no longer work. "No medium is likely ever to be as pervasive as broadcasting once was," he notes. He goes on to note that:

Over at MediaFreedom.org, a new site devoted to fighting the fanaticism of radical anti-media freedom groups like Free Press and other "media reformistas," I've started rolling out a 5-part series of essays about "The Battle for Media Freedom." In Part 1 of the series, I defined what real media freedom is all about, and in Part 2 I discussed the rising "cyber-collectivist" threat to media freedom. In my latest installment, I offer an analytical framework that better explains the major differences between the antagonists in the battle over media freedom.

Understanding the Origins of Political Struggles

In his many enlightening books, Thomas Sowell, a great economist and an even better political scientist, often warns of the triumph of good intentions over good economics. It's a theme that F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman both developed extensively before him. But Sowell has taken this analysis to an entirely differently level in books like A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, and The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. Sowell teaches us that no matter how noble one's intentions might be, it does not mean that those ideas will translate into sound public policy. Nonetheless, since "the anointed" believe their own intentions are pure and their methods are sound, they see nothing wrong with substituting their will for the will of millions of individuals interacting spontaneously and voluntarily in the marketplace. The result is an expansion of the scope of public decision-making and a contraction of the scope of private, voluntary action. As a result, mandates replace markets, and freedom gives way central planning.

Sowell developed two useful paradigms to help us better understand "the origins of political struggles." He refers to the "constrained" versus "unconstrained" vision and separates these two camps according to how they view the nature of man, society, economy, and politics:

"Constrained Vision"	"Unconstrained Vision"
Man is inherently constrained; highly fallible and imperfect	Man is inherently unconstrained; just a matter of trying hard enough; man & society are perfectible
Social and economic order develops in bottom-up, spontaneous fashion. Top down planning is hard because planners aren't omnipotent.	Order derives from smart planning, often from top-down. Elites can be trusted to make smart social & economic interventions.
Trade-offs & incentives matter most; wary of unintended consequences	Solutions & intentions matter most; less concern about costs or consequences of action
Opportunities count more than end results; procedural fairness is key; Liberty trumps	Outcomes matter most; distributive or "patterned" justice is key; Equality trumps liberty
Prudence and patience are virtues. There are limits to human reason.	Passion for, and pursuit of, high ideals trumps all. Human reason has boundless potential.
Law evolves and is based on the experience of ages.	Law is made by trusted elites.
Markets offer benefit of experience & experimentation and help develop knowledge over time.	Markets cannot ensure desired results; must be superseded by planning & patterned justice
Exponents: Aristotle, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, James Madison, Lord Acton, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Robert Nozick	Exponents: Plato, Rousseau, William Godwin, Voltaire, Robert Owen, John Kenneth Galbraith, John Dewey, Earl Warren, Bertrand Russell, John Rawls

As part of its excellent "Room for Debate" series, the New York Times has an interesting new online symposium up now asking, "Will Networks Go Wild, With No Decency Rules?" It was in response to last week's Second Circuit decision, which again slapped down an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to defend the agency's indecency enforcement regime. I was honored to be asked to contribute a short essay on the subject. Here are the other contributors and their essays. Take the time to check them out:

"The F.C.C.'s Policy Was a Mistake" - Michael K. Powell, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission

"Where Is the Line?" - Christopher Rosen, television writer

"Help Kids and Families" - Liz Perle, editor in chief at Common Sense Media

"A Bad Idea From the Start" - Robert Thompson, Syracuse University

"Put Parents in Control" - Adam Thierer, president, The Progress & Freedom Foundation

"It's the Violence!" - Kevin W. Saunders, professor of law, Michigan State University

I was particularly interested in former FCC's Chairman Michael Powell's admission that "The [FCC's] fleeting expletive policy was a mistake," and that "the real problem is the now-flawed constitutional foundation on which the law is built." Powell goes on to argue that, "We cannot have one First Amendment for broadcasting and another one for every other medium. This vestige of a bygone era provides fertile ground for mischief -- culture wars, political agenda and moral mandates. It's high time for the high court to bring our laws into the 21st century."

I wholeheartedly agree, and I wrote a lengthy law review article on just that topic back in 2007 entitled,"Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age." If you find it too boring, just watch this video I made summarizing the key points, which I called "America's First Amendment Twilight Zone."

Second Circuit: Pacifica Is Outdated, All Media Deserve Full First Amendment Protection

The Second Circuit just threw out the FCC's broadcast indecency rules--which had led to heavy fines for "fleeting expletives"--as "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here." What's ultimately most important about this decision is not what the court did, but what it said: The Constitutional framework that has allowed broadcast censorship has been rendered obsolete by the rise of the Internet and parental empowerment tools for new and old media.

In short, the court utterly rejected the Supreme Court's 1978 Pacifica decision--which gave the FCC great discretion in regulating indecency on broadcast radio and television in order to protect children who might be in the audience during daytime and early evening hours, citing the unique "pervasiveness" and "invasiveness" of broadcasting into the home. The court fully embraced what we've been saying for years--neither rationale holds true anymore:

we face a media landscape that would have been almost unrecognizable in 1978. Cable television was still in its infancy. The Internet was a project run out of the Department of Defense with several hundred users. Not only did Youtube, Facebook,and Twitter not exist, but their founders were either still in diapers or not yet conceived. In this environment, broadcast television undoubtedly possessed a "uniquely pervasive presence in thelives of all Americans."

The same cannot be said today. The past thirty years has seen an explosion of media sources, and broadcast television has become only one voice in the chorus. Cable television is almost as pervasive as broadcast.... The internet, too, has become omnipresent, offering access to everything from viral videos to feature films and, yes, even broadcast television programs.... Moreover, technological changes have given parents the ability to decide which programs they will permit their children to watch. (15-16)

Thus, the Second Circuit all but begged the Supreme Court to throw out Pacifica completely, but quickly noted that it is "bound by Supreme Court precedent, regardless of whether it reflects today's realities" (17). Fortunately, the court was able to reach the same result on vagueness grounds. It's worth reading this key passage to see what a consistent approach to the First Amendment would look like:

Earlier this year, while I was preparing this mega-filing to the Federal Communications Commission in its "Future of Media" proceeding, I read Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-open: A Free Press for a New Century, by Lee C. Bollinger, who is the president of Columbia University. I had planned on reviewing it since I try to review almost every book I read, but it was hard for me to believe that anyone would take this book too seriously, so I just moved along.

I hate to be that dismissive of any text but this is a book, after all, that proposes the creation of a massive U.S. propaganda machine. Bollinger doesn't just want our government to help out a bit at the margins like it currently does; he wants the State to get under the covers, cuddle tight and become intimate lovers with the Press. And then he wants the Big Press to project itself more, especially overseas, to compete with other State-owned or subsidized media enterprises. Again, it's a propaganda machine, pure and simple. In a new Wall Street Journal editorial today entitled, "Journalism Needs Government Help," he argues:

To me a key priority is to strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena. In today's rapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China's CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera. The U.S. government's international broadcasters, like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, were developed during the Cold War as tools of our anticommunist foreign policy. In a sign of how anachronistic our system is in a digital age, these broadcasters are legally forbidden from airing within the U.S. This system needs to be revised and its resources consolidated and augmented with those of NPR and PBS to create an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters.

China's CCTV and Xinhua news? Qatar's Al Jazeera? Really?! As Jeff Jarvis rightly asks in his terrific response essay, "No American BBC,": "In what sane world is the Chinese government's relationship with news a model?" Indeed, this is frightening stuff. Has Bollinger not studied the Chinese system of state media meddling? Needless to say, it's not pretty. And while I would agree that the BBC model shows that some State-funded media can be quite impressive and free of most meddling, that's not been the case across the board.

I'm hoping to get some input from readers as I look to finish up an amicus brief for the forthcoming Schwarzenegger v. EMA video game case. (Respondent briefs are due in mid-Sept and the State of California just filed its brief with the Court today). You will recall that the Supreme Court accepted the case for review in April, meaning it will be the first major case regarding video game speech rights heard by our nation's highest court. It raises questions about the First Amendment status of games and what rights minors have to buy or play "violent" video games. One section I hope to include in the brief I'm working on deals with how other forms of media content are increasingly intertwined with video game content. In it, I explain how video games are less of a discreet category of visual entertainment than they once were. I'd welcome ideas for other examples to use relative to the ones you see below.

I begin by discussing games that were inspired by major motion pictures, such as both the recent Star Wars and Lord of the Rings movie trilogies, for example. I also note that many games were inspired by notable books, such as the LotR games being inspired by Tolkien, and The Godfather video games that were inspired by Mario Puzo's novel of the same name. I also make mention of The Terminator movies starring California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which inspired a wide variety of video games, many of which featured his likeness.

More importantly, I highlight how many video games are now inspiring movies, music, books, and comics, including: Prince of Persia, Max Payne, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Doom, Final Fantasy, Halo, and Gears of War. The characters and storylines in the books, comics, and movies based on these games often closely track the video games that inspired them. Increasingly, therefore, games are developed along parallel tracks with these other forms of content. Thus, to regulate games under the standard California proposes in this case raises the question of whether those other types of media should be regulated in a similar fashion. Should every iteration of the original game title be regulated under the standard California has suggested if those books, comics, or movies contain violent themes?

Don't Like Apple's "Censorship" of Apps Content? Use Your iPhone or iPad Browser!

NY venture capitalist Fred Wilson notes eight advantages of using the iPhone's Safari browser over iPhone apps to access content. Fred's arguments seem pretty sound to me and help to illustrate the point I was trying to make a few months ago in a heated exchange over Adam's post on Apple's App Store, Porn & "Censorship": Although Apple restricts pornographic apps, it does not restrict what iPhone (or iPad or iTouch) users can access on their browsers. (And it's not censorship, anyway, because that's what governments do!)

As I noted in that exchange, the main practical advantage of apps right now over the browser seems to be the ability to play videos from websites that require Flash--which is especially useful for porn! Apple has rejected using Flash on the iPhone on technical grounds, in favor of HTML5, which will allow websites to display video without Flash--including on mobile devices. But once HTML5 is implemented (large scale adoption expected in 2012), this primary advantage of apps over mobile Safari will disappear: Users will be able to view porn on their browsers without needing to rely on apps--and Apple's control over apps based on their content will no longer matter so much, if at all.

Of course, it may take several more years for HTML5 to really become the standard, but what matters is that all Apple products, including mobile Safari, already support HTML5. So it's just a question of when porn sites move from Flash to HTML5. That seems already to be happening, with major porn publishers already starting the transition. The main stumbling block seems to be HTML5 support from the other browser makers. But Internet Explorer 9 supports HTML5, and is expected out early in 2011 with a beta version due out this August. Mozilla's Firefox 4.0 (formerly 3.7) also promises HTML5 support and is due out this November. Since porn publishers have always been on the cutting edge of implementing new web technologies, I'd bet we'll start seeing many porn sites move to HTML5 by this Christmas. And by Christmas 2011, as we all sit around the fire with Grandma sipping eggnog and enjoying our favorite adult websites on our overpriced-but-elegant Apple products loading in HTML5 in the Safari browser, we'll all look back and wonder why anyone made such a big deal about Apple restricting porn apps.

Oh, and if you get tired of waiting, get an Android phone! Anyway, here are my comments on Adam's February post: