Victory!

Today is a good day. Today I am proud to be an American, a New Yorker and an attorney. Today our nation, the United States of America, has taken a huge step forward in the area of human rights and liberties. We should all be proud to be a part of it. I am speaking, of course, about the Supreme Court's declaration today that video games are protected speech under the first amendment.

Why, did something else happen?

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S ____ (2011), decided June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), which forbade the sale of "violent video games" to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. It marks the end of a 6-year legal battle between the State of California and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and a significant victory for freedom of expression in entertainment. The full decision can be read here. Why is this a big deal? What's so bad about forbidding the sale of "evil" materials to minors? Let's break it down.

Taken from the opinion of the court, California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005) (which can be read here) prohibits the sale or rental of certain games to minors and requires their packaging to be labeled "18". The act covers games "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted" in a manner that "a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors," that is "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors," and that "causes the game, as a whole, to lack erious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." 1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. 1746.3 The law was taken up by the ESA for a pre-enforcement challenge and the California Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. The Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and we find outselves at the Supreme Court.

I can see where California is coming from. As an alleged adult and potential parent, I can understand wanting to protect my child from some of the more deplorable media available out there. To a certain extent, the standard California was attempting to apply here is comparable to the standard that states in the past have attempted to apply to other media when classified as "obscenity." Production or promotion of "obscenity" has been criminalized but the California law stopped short of that, prohibiting only the sale of so-classified games to minors. In essence, it would have treated certain games like pornography.

Furthermore, studies have shown that those who enjoy video games are aging. The average gamer, according to this site, is now 37 years old and has been playing for at least 12 years and the average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old. That means that California's law (which, again, proposed only to restrict the sale of certain games to people under age 18) would not restrict the sale of electronic entertainment to its most active and passionate supporters.

The ESRB also has its own rating system, similar to that of the MPAA. Like the ratings attached to movies - PG-13, R, NC-17 - games have a similar system, self-imposed, running from E for everyone to AO for adults only. The ESA reports that 76% of all games sold in 2010 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. Wikipedia reports that in the history of ESRB ratings, only 21 games have ever gotten the dreaded AO. None of these games have ever sold well (nor have they ever been reviewed well either). Just as certain movies have been damaged financially by an undeserved NC-17 rating, so too have games been damaged by an AO rating. The imposition of California's law (which could apply to games rated M as well) could widen this damage and lead skittish game companies to play it safe, depriving adults of their entertainment.

Luckily, the Supreme Court has alleviated this fear. The majority's opinion calls to attention the curious distinction America has made between depictions of sex and violence. The distribution of depictions of sexual content, according to the opinion, has long been restricted in this country as obscene. Had California's law been tailored to sexual content instead of violence, therefore, it appears that it would have had a greater chance of being upheld. The opinion then traces America's long history of attempts at censorship of violence. The majority wisely points out the graphic depictions of violence in childrens' books, from Grimm's Fairy Tales (did you know that the wicked queen in Snow White is forced to dance in red hot slippers until she dies?) to the Odyssey, to the Lord of the Flies (Piggy's murder). They then point to the attempts to ban everything from trashy novels to movies to radio dramas and comic books - each effort has eventually failed.

In the end, the Supreme Court declares that video games are protected speech under the first amendment. Therefore, a law can only restrict this speech based on its content if it passes the strict scrutiny test. The law must be justified by a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly drawn to serve that interest." California's law cannot pass this test. California cannot prove the existence of a link between violent video games and harm to children. They tried to do so by way of competing psychological studies, but the Court wisely concludes that these studies are deeply flawed. The studies show that violent video games produce the same psychological results as watching Bugs Bunny cartoons, playing Sonic the Hedgehog or viewing a photograph of a gun. As the court states, "California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoons, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns."

It comes down to the fact that the law is wildly underinclusive. "Here, California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment - at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movies producers - and has given no persusive reason why." They go on to talk about other things as well - about the ESRB's rating system and how the law doesn't really seem an effective way to assist parents who don't want their kids getting their hands on these things.

I could go on with this all day, as it's fascinating to me, but I have work to do. If you got this far and don't want to scroll up again, read the opinion here and let me know what you think.

Review: Battle Los Angeles

Oh hot damn.

A few years ago there was a huge clamor over the possibility of a movie based on the Halo games. Peter Jackson was involved, then Neil Blomkamp (District 9). Then the whole thing fell apart. People were pissed. They thought that a movie based on Halo would be epic and fantastic. And for everyone under that belief, for everyone who still believes that video game concepts make for awesome movies, my response is "No, they don't." Why not? Battle: Los Angeles.

Battle: Los Angeles (2011) is Independence Day (1996) told from the perspective of a single unit of marines. On the day before he is set to retire, Staff Sergeant Micheal Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is called back into active service to lead Echo Company, 2nd battalion, 5th Marine regiment as they conduct an evacuation of western Santa Monica during what is thought to be a meteor shower. It doesn't take long for the marines to encounter the real threat and from then on the film is a constant barrage of action and suspense.

It's a video game on film. That's what it is and that's what you should expect from it. The sad part about that is that there are plenty of games with really good stories. But if you were to boil down the concept of a video game, a military shooter against aliens, and throw out every good dramatic idea, you'd get this. Imagine if someone had read a book containing every military movie cliche ever used and decided to use that as his script bible. Let's check off the cliches:

• Commanding Officer a single day away from retirement with a dark past
• Young virgin soldier
• Soldier with a pregnant wife
• Soldier about to get married
• Soldier with a dead brother (who blames the new Staff Sergeant)
• Single latino parent with a young child
• Brave young latino child

I'll be fair. There are large portions of this film that I thoroughly enjoyed. Although he stumbles significantly in other areas, director Jonathan Liebesman knows action sequences and executes them very well. Whenever the characters aren't speaking the movie is fun. The alien invaders are sufficiently scary at times and the set pieces are intense enough to make me pay attention. There's a particular sequence on a bridge where the kids have to be lowered down while everyone is under fire that was very suspenseful. The movie is filmed like a military documentary and it shows. It feels like a war movie that just happens to have aliens as the enemy and that's entertaining.

The problems are completely on the written page. Everything is predictable, everything is cliche. Every line of dialogue is an unintentional laugh-riot. At one point Nantz gives a long emotional speech about his dark past. He follows up this powerful speech with the line: "But none of that matters any more." Half the audience fell out of their chairs. At another moment, Nantz notices that the aliens are particularly difficult to kill. The team manages to capture one damaged but alive and attempt surgery to find any weaknesses. After tearing through endless layers of tough armor (it took several minutes of screen time), Nantz plunges his knife into something soft and exclaims, "Here! This is it!" So all we have to do is shoot through tons of layers of ridiculously strong armor? Thanks man, good advice.

SPOILERS (I guess)

But the icing on the cake is when the team finally realizes the enemy mothership's secret weakness: Missiles! And after their success, they return to base to hear that the details of their amazing strategy are being broadcast all over the world. My god, we never thought to shoot missiles at them! Finally, now that we've figured out what to do, we can take those alien sons of bitches down!

Wait, what?

Missiles? What have you been doing, throwing rocks at the things?

That it took even half a second for the American military to decide to chuck an explosive at something that disagreed with them is ridiculous. It's so ridiculous, in fact, that it was all anyone could talk about as they exited the theater. Hell, even in Independence Day they had at least enough brains to show us that explosives, even nuclear explosives, were useless against the invaders. These guys are chumps!

Sigh. There's a game adaptation of this movie that will be released in the next few weeks for download on Xbox 360 and PS3. Maybe that'll have a better story.

Buddies

Resolution.

More Stuff that Isn't Mine, but is Funny

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

I've read all seven books and now I've seen seven out of the eight films. This is the best film, made from what was in my opinion the best book. For six books and six movies, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has gone to school and basked in the glow of Hogwarts, protected by his teachers and surrounded by friends. For six books and movies, he has solved a mystery, beaten a villain and saved the day in time to enjoy the last day of school. That's not to say it's always been easy or completely free of loss or pain, but the training wheels were on.

This time the training wheels are gone. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is dead, the Ministry has fallen and nowhere is safe. Harry faces attacks at all of his prior hiding spots, from the Dursley home to the Burrow and even at the Ministry itself. Hogwarts is so dangerous he doesn't even dare venture there. Meanwhile friends are dying all around him while others who before were harmless annoyances are now dangerous enemies. It's been said that the world has an Orwellian / Nazi-ish feel and I agree with that. With Voldemort in power, Harry is number one on the most wanted list. The Ministry is turning itself inside out looking for "mudbloods," people born with muggle ancestry. The Ministry's guards even look like SS agents.

The whole thing is astonishingly bleak. There's something refreshing and intense about this movie. Watching with my buddy Leo, we recoiled in shock during the opening motorcycle chase as cars flipped and exploded, killing innocent bystanders. There's a body count here. They're not f**king around. The old Harry Potter structure, with mystery interspersed with classes and teenage drama, is gone. Harry spends the entire movie on the run, camping out in the woods with Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson, ever the fox). Instead of seeing the same old Hogwarts hallways and classrooms, we're now treated to expansive vistas of the English countryside.

A lot of people have groused about "Harry Potter and the Great Camping Adventure," but I'm really happy the film took its time and played up the hopelessness of the situation. No adults. No family. No help. Just Harry, Hermione and Ron in the woods, running for their lives. The world has gone cold and dark and the kids have only each other. There's a scene in the middle of this section with no dialogue. Listening to the radio with its endless stream of death notices and bad news, Harry and Hermione happen upon a piece of music ("O'Children" by Nick Cave, look it up). Seizing the moment, they dance. They keep dancing as long as they can hear the song. When the song ends, their mood drops and the scene ends. Message received.

A word about performances. The kids (now adults) are great here. Radcliffe isn't the whiny little bitch we were afraid he'd be. He is smart and resourceful yet emotional and believable. We can actually see him working things out behind his eyes. Radcliffe has grown into a great actor and I'm excited to see what he'll do beyond the Potterverse. Rupert Grint remains servicable as ever, even if his performance doesn't rise to the level that the others' do. Emma Watson, however, is fantastic. She is able to portray Hermione not as a little girl but as a full adult, a woman gifted and cursed with a brilliant mind, struggling to both comprehend and control her emotions. She seems to be playing Hermione's feelings for Harry and Ron close to the vest, but maybe that's just my perspective. There is a love triangle here that wasn't really touched upon in the book.

Someone at work asked me what I thought of the movie. I started to explain what I've written above, but she cut me off. "Isn't this a children's movie?" she asked, flabbergasted. I gave my opinion that in fact it was not, that it was instead an epic intended for everyone. "That's ridiculous," she laughed. "I stopped reading after the second book." It was then that I realized that we were not really having a discussion. Point is, you may laugh at my analysis above. You may dismiss Harry Potter and everything attached to it as "for kids." But if you make that mistake, it's you who's missing out. The books are great, the movies are great, and this is the best of both. Enjoy.

Not Mine, But Funny

Vaguely Political

Not Mine, But Interesting

The Man From Awesome

Recently, I met a diplomat - a man who claimed to be from the country known as Awesome. Awesome doesn't appear on any maps. You can't find it on a globe or on your computer. This is, I was told, because you are not awesome enough to find Awesome. Searches on Wikipedia don't work either, although the man from Awesome told me he had attempted to make such a page and was denied.

"Wikipedia just wasn't awesome enough," he said.

The man from Awesome was fascinating, although he of course preferred to be called awesome. He was tall and thin, dressed in a dark charcoal suit with a white shirt and light blue tie. His hair was always parted to his left, although a stray hair would stand up from time to time. He described his home by only its name. When asked about the immigration policy, he replied that there was none. "You must be born awesome," he calmly explained.

As we walked together, our interview continued. He told me that the national flag was black. Just black. No patterns, no images, no stripes or stars or symbols of any kind. "When we get on the battlefield, and you see that black flag coming towards you," he said wistfully, "Shit goes bananas." He then described Awesome's unique brand of armed forces, also described as awesome. When asked for the national pastime, his reply was an obscene sexual remark regarding my mother. Then he asked if I would like to see the national bird and made a rude gesture with his right hand.

Observing his briefcase, I asked if he was part of Awesome's national government. "We have no government," he replied. "Everyone's just awesome." I was intrigued, having devoted years of study to my own country's form of democracy and legal structure. I asked how decisions were made, if there was a council or a senate. He shook his head. "Can't have a Senate, everyone's too awesome," he said. "If we had a Senate, it would just be a hundred awesome people constantly high-fiving. That would make your arm fall off and that would not be awesome."

Awesome's national currency was, of course, the awesome. The man from Awesome pointed at his bottle of soda and proclaimed that in his country, the bottle would cost but one awesome. When asked if this was roughly equivalent to the American dollar, he waved his hand and said that he could not think in dollars, but only in awesome. This confused me at first but as it turns out, the plural of awesome is also awesome. I struggled to understand how a people could survive on such a currency, but the man from Awesome assuaged my fears. "Everyone gets a stipend of awesome," he said. "We're all too awesome to work." He also stated that the chief export of Awesome was, of course, awesome. I could only assume that the nation had been fortunate enough to be located just above a vast, almost unlimited supply of the precious resource.

The man from Awesome then told me that he must leave. He walked out of the coffee shop we had wandered into just as a long black limousine, made from a stretched hummer combined with treads from a military tank and what looked to be a genuine shark fin attached to the roof, pulled up to the curb. I rushed outside, one last question lodged in my mind.

"What's the national anthem?" I asked.

The man from Awesome said nothing. He merely grinned as he ducked into the strange vehicle. But as the limo pulled away, music began to blast from inside of it.

"Damn It Feels Good to be a Gangsta," by the Geto Boys.

Fungal Infection

First They Came...

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I Love Android

Oh how I do.

Here We Go

Welcome to the Old Drawer! I'm Adam. Sometimes I make comics.

Here's one!