ESA Wins Final Judgment Over Chicago Transit Authority

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
ESA Wins Final Judgment Over Chicago Transit Authority


The Chicago Transit Authority [http://www.theesa.com], which has been told by the courts that it cannot ban advertising for mature videogames on its buses and facilities.

The trouble began back in 2008 when the CTA sued [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/83338-Chicago-Transit-Authority-Pulls-Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Ads] on Constitutional grounds and won, leading the Transit Authority to implement a new regulation at the beginning of 2009 that banned all ads for mature and adult-only videogames on its property. That led to a second lawsuit, this time from the Entertainment Software Association, for essentially the same complaint: That the restriction was a violation of the First Amendment rights of videogame companies.

The ESA won a ruling [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97353-ESA-Wins-Injunction-Against-Chicago-Transit-Authority].

She also ruled that the ESA is "entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred for any action to enforce the terms of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction based on the CTA's failure to comply, in any way, with its obligations set forth herein." The CTA has agreed not to "appeal or otherwise attack the validity or enforceability" of the decision.

Another day, another First Amendment win for the videogame industry. Let's hope the winning streak holds when SCOTUS comes to town [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/7576-The-Needles-Master-Chief-Goes-to-Washington].


Permalink
 

Deofuta

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,099
0
0
Hurrah! I am actually doing a speech on this come next week, so bring on the evidence!

Also, I wonder how many victories this adds up to now for gaming as free speech. Wasn't there like 12 straight wins before the California proposition got through? Quite a track record so far.
 

SnootyEnglishman

New member
May 26, 2009
8,308
0
0
About bloody time is say. The game industry is always looked down upon thanks to people like FOX pulling crap stories out of their asses just to get the people on TV.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Deofuta said:
Hurrah! I am actually doing a speech on this come next week, so bring on the evidence!

Also, I wonder how many victories this adds up to now for gaming as free speech. Wasn't there like 12 straight wins before the California proposition got through? Quite a track record so far.
The California one didn't even really get through. It was shot down in the courts, so they just repealed it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Sore losers.

OT: Another day, another win.
 

Pandalisk

New member
Jan 25, 2009
3,248
0
0
Good to hear, but damn, this took a damn while to get through. 2 years? The justice system is damn slow.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Well, took time but it's a victory at least! Wonder which game they will advertise to celebrate!
 

pneuma08

Gaming Connoisseur
Sep 10, 2008
401
0
0
I hate to say this, but the CTA really, really does not need to be in more debt than it is right now. Go go First Amendment, but I still need to get to work without having to pay an arm and a leg.
 

-Samurai-

New member
Oct 8, 2009
2,294
0
0
I don't understand why they'd ban advertising of an "M" rated game anyway. The advertisement isn't violent, has no drug references, had no nudity, and doesn't use foul language. It's usually just a picture of the main character with an angry face.
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
You know, the CTA has the right to have simply told Rockstar's advertisement department "Thanks, but no thanks guys we'll pass on this one." Going the extra mile and being douches by actually banning their adds was just overkill.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
pneuma08 said:
I hate to say this, but the CTA really, really does not need to be in more debt than it is right now. Go go First Amendment, but I still need to get to work without having to pay an arm and a leg.
Well that would be because the CTA stupidly restricted its ad revenue. The payment for the suit was just for attorney's fees and time spent. Chump change compared to what gets thrown in for most lawsuits.
This is a case of the lawsuit being put towards getting the job done, not looking for handouts.
 

GodKlown

New member
Dec 16, 2009
514
0
0
The whole suit was a bit ridiculous. Basically, it was legal to advertise these games on television, but not on the side of a Chicago bus? I don't know the statistics on kids that ride the bus in Illinois, but I'm still willing to bet more kids watch tv than ride the bus.
And I agree; the buses weren't showing images of anything adult in nature, just a shot of the main characters in the game. It's fine to publicly advertise alcohol, but keep kids away from those dangerous video game ads!
Screw Fox News and anyone who believes blindly everything they hear on that network. Ads for video games are not the problem, it's parents who buy mature games for kids instead of paying attention to the rating on the front of the box.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
bottom line, if you're going to ban M-Rated game ads, ban R-Rated movie ads.. It's not fair to censor one media and not the other.

Isn't it paid advertising though? I mean, can't they just not advertise any games? The game makers have the right to stand on the busses and go "I MAKE A GAME AND IT IS AWESOME ITS CALLED GRAND THEFT AUTO IV!

I don't understand how this is a first amendment issue except for that little bit I posted at the top. I mean, the white house doesn't have to fly a "I <3 GTAIV" Banner, even if Take-Two gives them a billion dollars do they? because if they do, then I think Take-Two should do that.
 

Adzma

New member
Sep 20, 2009
1,287
0
0
It's times like these that almost make me want to move to the US. Australian has no Bill of Rights, and although we have signed all five international treaties which make up the International Bill of Human Rights, they aren't protected by law. In effect, we can't make freedom of speech arguments.
 

crotalidian

and Now My Watch Begins
Sep 8, 2009
676
0
0
Hopeless Bastard said:
While its hilarious for public transit to even partially advocate the act of car theft, was this really an important legal battle? I mean, you say "hooray, victory for first amendment! booyah!" but what this says to me is "we can sue you if you pull our advertising for any reason."
Not ANY reason. If the reason is unsubstatial such as 'we dont want you advertising these dangerous games to our kids' then you can sue. If you pull an ad Campaign that says 'WE LOVE ABORTIONS AND HATE GOD, BUY OUR PRODUCT WOOT!' then you can pull that for being offensive and immoral and you would probably win in that case, although you couldnt ban the company from advertising its product, but you can ban the Ad for being offensive
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
the CTA is nuts, since when and y would a municipality not want to except money for an advertisement when the ad breaks no laws?