Recently in free speech Category

Judge Rules Chicago Transit Authority Cannot Ban Computer and Video Game Ads

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) a preliminary injunction in its suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the ESA said today. The case, which the ESA filed in July 2009, challenges CTA's prohibition of certain computer and video game advertisements as a violation of the guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In her opinion, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stated, "...the advertisements the CTA wishes to ban promote expression that has constitutional value and implicates core First Amendment concerns."

"This ruling is a win for Chicago's citizens, the video game industry and, above all, the First Amendment," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further. To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources. Chicago deserves better and we look forward to bringing this matter to an end."

ESA argued that CTA's Ordinance 008-147, which took effect in January 2009, unfairly targeted the entertainment software industry by prohibiting any advertisement that "markets or identifies a video or computer game rated 'Mature 17+' (M) or 'Adults Only 18+' (AO)." The ESA further contended the ordinance unconstitutionally "restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so." In addition, the ESA's complaint stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and ignores less restrictive means of achieving the supposed ends of the ordinance. The court ruled that the ESA was likely to succeed on the merits of these claims at trial and, therefore, blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case could be finally resolved.

The ESA also contended that the CTA's ordinance is unnecessary because game-related marketing is already subject to the Entertainment Software Rating Board's Advertising Review Council, which strictly regulates computer and video game advertisements that are seen by the general public. The Entertainment Software Rating Board assigns computer and video games ratings and content descriptors, which are both displayed on advertisements for those games.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. The ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including a global anti-piracy program, owning the E3 Expo, business and consumer research, federal and state government relations, First Amendment and intellectual property protection efforts. 

The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.

The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)

The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."

The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.

The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:

        "43.  As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
        reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
        Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
        (a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
        "death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
        (c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
        healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
        misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....

        "45.  By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
        legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
        decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
        administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
        ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
        involves rationing healthcare..."

"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"

AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)