Introduction to the Case
The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has found itself at the middle of a groundbreaking lawsuit. Candy Lab AR, the corporate behind the augmented reality poker game Texas Rope ‘Em, is suing town over an ordinance that requires permits for virtual and location-based augmented reality games. This lawsuit has significant implications for the longer term of the gaming industry and the concept of free speech.
Background on the Ordinance
In response to the recognition of Pokémon Go, which had players visiting real-life locations to capture digital creatures, town of Milwaukee decided to implement an ordinance requiring corporations to acquire permits before releasing location-based augmented reality games. The permit process involves reviewing the "appropriateness of the appliance," submitting a "certificate of insurance" for $1 million of general liability coverage, and potentially paying other fees.
The Lawsuit
Candy Lab AR is difficult the constitutionality of this ordinance, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. The company’s attorney, Brian Wassom, claims that the ordinance restricts Candy Lab’s right to free speech by regulating the publication of its video games that utilize augmented reality. According to the grievance, the ordinance is a previous restraint on Candy Lab’s speech, impermissibly restricts speech based on its content, and is unconstitutionally vague.
The Argument for Augmented Reality as Free Speech
Candy Lab asserts that augmented reality is a type of speech, citing examples resembling sports broadcasters imposing lines of scrimmage and first down markers during a football game. The company also points to other applications of augmented reality, including heads-up displays in cars, architectural renderings, and medical devices that superimpose images onto a patient’s skin. Texas Rope ‘Em, the sport at the middle of the lawsuit, encourages players to gather cards by visiting certain game stops programmed into the appliance.
Challenges to the Ordinance
The lawsuit takes issue with the language of the ordinance, which states that allows are required before an organization can "introduce a location-based augmented reality game into the Parks." Candy Lab argues that this language is "incoherent and nonsensical," as corporations don’t physically introduce software right into a location. Instead, the software is made available for download, and physical entry right into a location occurs when a person carries their mobile device with them.
Conclusion
The end result of this lawsuit can have significant implications for the longer term of augmented reality games and the concept of free speech. Candy Lab is in search of a declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable. As the gaming industry continues to evolve, it is probably going that we’ll see more cases like this one, difficult the boundaries of what constitutes free speech and the way it might be regulated. The city of Milwaukee’s ordinance could have been intended to handle the nuisance attributable to Pokémon Go, nevertheless it has ultimately raised necessary questions on the role of presidency in regulating latest and emerging technologies.
