I wanted to take a few moments regarding a topic that is not...]]> Moved from C4L Thread......

By ArickStall

I wanted to take a few moments regarding a topic that is not discussed too often but is another example of liberty being eaten away nonetheless. I'm referencing access to media, and more specifically, video games.

Earlier today, I read an article about Electronic Arts (EA) not toppling under political pressure to take the terrorist sect known as Taliban out of their most recent multi-console gaming release, Medal of Honor. For those of you familiar with the franchise, it is a modern-age reboot set to compete with the likes of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox criticized the game, calling on retailers not to sell Medal Of Honor in order to "show their support for the armed forces."

Specifically, Fox said:

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands. It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers," he said in a statement. "It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

I agree with Electronic Arts to expand on their creative vision and keep this part in the video game to allow for more realistic depiction, among other things. While the choice is up to an individual retailer whether or not to sell a product, it should not be up to the state.

Which leads me to my next point.

This article actually reminded me of oral arguments that will be heard by the Supreme Court on November 2nd of this year in the case of Schwarzenegger v. EMA. This is also known as the "violent video game" case.

The Entertainment Consumers Association, known as ECA, will submit a friend of the court document (amicus brief) in response to the Supreme Court's decision to hear the argument.

What this means to consumers is that by the end of this year, or perhaps next year, the Supreme Court will listen to the arguments of both sides and make a decision to agree or disagree with the lower courts. What does that spell out for us? According to the Entertainment Consumers Association, it would mean the following:

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 not an understatement to say this is the most pivotal point in video gaming history, as the gaming age continues to expand creativity and realism into next generation consoles and gaming.

This is a call to action to gamers everywhere, or those who simply care about entertainment media and the selling of products associated with it. If this fails, a potential outcome could be that certain video games and associated products will be illegal to be sold in the United States, curtailing true creative license and entertainment value to consumers. The ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) rating system already exists in the United States and Canada, but this would take a more drastic, negative step.

I ask that if you have time, you please sign the ECA petition and have your name on the list when the brief is presented on November 2nd.

What are your thoughts?