Anti-violent video game crusader Leland Yee arrested for corruption, bribery

California leland-yee-arrestedSenator Leland Yee, author of the 2005 anti-video game law that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and one of the most prominent figures in the California Democratic Party, has been arrested and indicted on a wide range of charges, including corruption and bribery.

It’s a laundry list of alleged crimes that sounds like something straight out of Grand Theft Auto.

Read more at Yahoo! Games

The gaming habits of The Supreme Court

The supreme-court-gamingJustices of the Supreme Court may not e-mail each other, but that doesn’t mean they don’t know their way around technology.

In a new story on Talking Points Memo, Justice Elena Kagan says the Court studied up for the famous Brown v. EMA case, which resulted in the gaming industry’s First Amendment protections being made crystal clear, by sitting down and trying out these games everyone was talking about.

It went about as you’d expect.

Read more at Yahoo! Games

The biggest video game controversies of 2011

For a pastime primarily concerned with having fun, video games sure know how to push the wrong buttons. And while 2011 was relatively tame — no Grand Theft Auto title was released, for instance, though we did see a new Mortal Kombat — there were still plenty of reasons to get mad about games this year.

From an unprecedented security breach to mobile-gaming mudslinging, here are the topics that kept us talking.

Read more at Yahoo! Games

Video game industry wants $1.1 million from California

Securing a court victory that clearly defined the First Amendment rights of video games was just the beginning for the Entertainment Software Association. Now it wants California to pay its legal bills.

The video game trade group has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court for reimbursement of attorney’s fees in the case of Brown v. EMA, fees that add up to $1.1 million (and could go even higher).

Read more at Yahoo! Games

The Money Making Game #10: The War on Games

We certainly have no problem getting caught up in the fun of playing games, but the people who create them have their pocketbooks to worry about, too. In this column, finance expert and GameSpy contributor Chris Morris guides you through the tricky corridors the gaming industry’s financial side, touching on big-time business decisions and how they matter to the common gamer.

After being subjected to political and legal attacks for years, the gaming industry got one hell of a shield last month as the U.S. Supreme Court definitively stated “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection.” It was cause for celebration — for investors, for developers, and for gamers. But it hardly meant that the attacks were over… or less dangerous. For several publishers, a new fight is already looming.

“I don’t think this puts an end to it, ” says Dan Offner, a partner with law firm Loeb & Loeb, who specializes in the video game industry. “It may put a pin in it for a short period of time, but I see the regulation of mature content with respect to minors as a hot-button issue for the Federal Trade Commission and the various state governments. It’s the end of round one, but round two is about to start [and] I don’t see the industry getting a big breather.”

Read more at Gamespy

Analysis: Why Do Video Games Face Such Resistance?

[Despite Monday’s Supreme Court victory, we still have a long way to go until the general public understands our ratings system and acknowledges their children are safe. Gamasutra editor at large Chris Morris discusses why our jobs now are to help them understand.]

For the past year, I’ve pretty much lived and breathed Brown v. EMA.

I kept a close eye on the case as the Court considered whether to address it. I was in the room in November when oral arguments were presented. And I’ve stayed in touch with attorneys about ramifications in the long wait for a ruling.

With the decision now in, I found myself doing a series of round-robin interviews today on morning radio shows on news/talk stations around the country.

Read more at Gamasutra

Biz relieved over Court’s vidgame ruling

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday that violent videogames are a protected form of free speech comes as a relief not just to the gaming industry but to the rest of Hollywood.

The high court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down a California law that attempted to restrict the sale of violent games to minors. The industry had been closely watching the ruling because it feared that if the law were upheld, it would carve out an exemption to the First Amendment that could eventually extend to violence in movies and TV shows.

Read more at Daily Variety

Highlights from the Supreme Court gaming decision

Monday’s ruling that video games are protected under the First Amendment was the culmination of a long fight. And the victory was clearly a solid one for the industry.

But in reading through the 90-plus page decision and dissenting opinions, there are some interesting arguments – both for the industry’s rights and those of parents. Much like the oral arguments of last November, Justices were split on the possible differences in interactive and passive forms of entertainment and the First Amendment issues at hand.

Read more at Variety’s Technotainment blog

Analysis: Despite Ruling, Threats Remain For The Games Industry

There’s plenty to cheer about today in the video game industry — and for good reason.

The definitive Supreme Court ruling that video games are entitled to First Amendment protections is something developers, publishers and industry backers have been actively trying to secure for years. Achieving the goal is laudable, but it’s not the end of the fight — not by a long shot.

Read more at Gamasutra

Despite Ruling, Video Game Fight Is Far From Over

As the video game industry celebrates Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which formally recognized video games as entitled to First Amendment protection, many are assuming the political fight that has loomed over the industry for years is finally over.

That’s wrong. In fact, it’s simply the start of Act 2.