By Geng Chen
Violent Video Game Fight Ends Not With a Bang, But With an Invoice
The Sacramento Bee had the last word in the California violent video games saga. California taxpayers will end up bearing the $1.8 million bill for legal services related to defending the controversial state statute, struck down by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court last year in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n. It would have prevented retailers from selling video games depicting killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexual assault to minors. No child was ever prohibited from purchasing these games, however, as lower courts had blocked implementation of the law since the initial preemptive challenge by industry representatives. The $1.8 million includes the legal fees borne by the video game industry, totaling $1.3 million. The remaining $500,000 represents the hours spent by the state attorney general’s office in defending the case.
FCC Tightens Regulations on Telemarketing Robocalls
The LA Times describes the Federal Communications Commission’s newly revised telemarketing regulations on robo-calls. These automated, pre-recorded marketing messages will be prohibited unless the telemarketer obtains prior written consent. The exemption for companies with an “established business relationship” with consumers will be eliminated. According to the FCC, such a relationship can form when the consumer contacts the business to ask a question or makes a purchase. Furthermore, ABC News reports that a consumer will also have the power to opt out from future calls within the first two seconds of the message. According to the Wall Street Journal, the telemarketer would then have to hang up and add that number to the company’s do-not-call list. However, certain organizations, including nonprofits such as local schools and churches, or political groups and pollsters, may still make these calls. The new rules are expected to take effect after review by the Office of Management and Budget.
European Right to Be Forgotten Raises Questions About Free Speech
The European Commission’s proposed online privacy rules create a new “right to be forgotten,” reports Time. An individual would be able to demand that online companies delete information about him or her, unless the company can demonstrate a legitimate reason not to. The stated intent behind the new rules is to protect the future employment prospects of young people from the consequences of damaging photos or information on social network sites. However, some commentators have expressed concern over the potential impacts on free speech. In the Stanford Law Review Online, George Washington Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen cautioned against a broad application of the new rules, in particular applying the right to be forgotten to truthful information posted by third parties. Even though the new regulations allow companies to retain the information if the need to do so is legitimate, shifting this legal burden of proof to the company may cause it to take a conservative approach and comply with all complaints. Although the European Commissioner Viviane Reding has made reassurances that the right to be forgotten will not “take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media” (as reported by the Wall Street Journal), Rosen contends that the law, currently written to include “any information related to a data subject,” is uncomfortably broad.