Posted on 07/17/2004 2:47:23 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
A federal judge yesterday struck down Washington state's ban on selling violent video games to minors, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free speech.
A trade association representing the entertainment industry, which had sued to challenge the ban, said it welcomed the ruling but would work with the state to make sure parents have enough information about the games to make informed decisions about their suitability for children.
In yesterday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik wrote that the state's Violent Video Game law, which has been on the books since May 2003 but has never been enforced, violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The law would have imposed a fine of up to $500 on anyone who rents or sells to someone 17 years old or younger video or computer games in which the player kills or injures "a human form who is depicted as a public law enforcement officer."
Laws similar to Washington's have been enacted in St. Louis County, Mo., and elsewhere, but none has survived judicial review, and Lasnik in earlier proceedings had warned that Washington's was unlikely to do so.
Yesterday he noted that obscenity is one of the few forms of expression not entitled to First Amendment protection under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and he rejected an invitation from the Washington Attorney General's Office to expand the definition of obscenity to include violence.
The law's sponsor, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, had predicted the law would survive because it is narrowly drafted, dealing only with law enforcement officers, and is supported by research showing that watching violence produces violent activities.
But Lasnik undercut those assertions.
"The current state of research cannot support the legislative determinations that underlie the Act because there has been no showing that exposure to video games that 'trivialize violence against law enforcement officers' is likely to lead to actual violence against such officers," Lasnik wrote in his 15-page opinion.
An additional basis for invalidating the law, he wrote, is that it is too vague to enforce easily.
"Would a game built around 'The Simpsons' or 'Looney Tunes' characters be 'realistic' enough to trigger the act?" he asked. "Do the Roman centurions of 'Age of Empires' ... qualify as 'public law enforcement officers'?"
Store clerks, unable to decide whether a game falls afoul of the law, might withhold all games that could possibly be unlawful, and authors and game designers would steer wider than necessary to avoid unlawful portrayals, Lasnik wrote.
The Entertainment Software Association said that before it filed suit challenging the law, it had offered to help Washington parents be more aware of the game industry's rating system, improve signage at retailers' sales counters and beef up age-checking procedures that help prevent sales of violent games to minors.
"They rejected it, but we're offering that help again now," association president Doug Lowenstein said yesterday.
Jim Pharris, a senior assistant attorney general, said the state has until mid-August to decide whether to seek a rehearing, appeal or accept yesterday's decision.
"(Lasnik) didn't slam the door to the possibility that the Legislature could pass a law that would meet the necessary standards," Pharris said.
Right On!
Another reason to be sure hanoi john doesn't get elected...judges.
Like day after tomorrow ...
While protecting political speech is arguably the most important reason for the First Amendment, it is certainly not the only reason. Video games are also entitled to First Amendment protection. It's good to see judges stand up against faddish censorship laws based on half-baked "anti-violence" theories.
Monitoring their kid's video games is the parents' job, not some government bureaucrat's job.
We don't live in a vacuum.
Absolutely correct....
Do you WANT the government to raise your kids for you? Are you REALLY sure you want to go there?
Or are you just trying to use the force of government to censor your own pet peeve?
Liberals want to do away with conservative thought, RINO's want the government to censor anything they find "icky".
Both of y'all need to get your heads out of your collective posteriors. Take some personal responsibility for a g*dd*mn change.
A federal judge yesterday struck down Washington state's ban on selling violent video games to minors, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free speech.Where's Joe Lieberman?
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
NOT A PING LIST, merely posted to: Constitutionalist Conservative; catpuppy; Dead Corpse; dpwiener; GailA; middie; Saint Athanasius; ValerieUSA; YOUGOTITINTRODUCTION TO JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENTING OPINION ON THE ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES CASEJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes did not depart very far from the older British notion that free speech and press meant little more than no prior restraint, that is, one could say what one wanted, but then could be prosecuted for it. Freedom of speech, he declared, was not unlimited, and in a famous aphorism noted that one could not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The test he announced at that time became the basis for all speech tests for the next fifty years: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
No, I do not want my kids raised by the government...but I want my kids to be protected.
I can't watch my kids 24 hours a day... 7 days a week.
But even if I could, I can't watch other kids who are going to interact with my kids....
There are some horrible video games out there... and I am not taking about the ones used in the article...
I talking truly cop killing/ sex having games... that kids should not be playing like Sin City... and there is another one that has slipped my mind...
Freedom of Speech is not absolute... and it is definitely not absolute for kids under 14...
There are things kids should not be able to purchase, or watch or listen to... and that is not against the first amendment.
Sounds like you are trying hard to make excuses for horsecrap parenting. Teach your kids right, and you wouldn't have to worry about them falling in with bad crowds. Don't buy them these games if you don't want them playing them. Don't allow them to have a TV or computer in their room.
They are your kids living in your house. Try disciplining them for a change.
You don't know anything about my kids... I discipline my kids... and so far so good... But you are not answering the true question...
Why can't the government forbid kids from buying games that are harmful?... Why can't we put restrictions like must be 21 or over to purchase... what is wrong with that?
Because what you think is harmful may differ from what I think is harmful, and both may differ from what some government bureaucrat thinks is harmful. It's easy to point to extreme disgusting examples and say that those games are obviously harmful (which means it should be easy for you to spot them and forbid your kids to buy them without any assistance from the government).
But what about the games which are in a gray area? The ones which you think teach bad moral lessons but your neighbor thinks are fine? Or vice versa? Once you grant the government the power to censor things which someone considers undesirable, it's awfully hard to limit that power. Soon the government will start forbidding games from creating a hostile gameplace environment which disparages various ethnic, religious, and other groups. All games will have to be sanitized and politically correct.
This is not the path that people who support individual rights and a free society should want to go down.
So should we let everything be legal?
Since we disagree?
That is not true freedom.
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, should look up the fight Frank Zappa put up against Tipper and the rest of the Washington Wives back during the PMRC junta. I think he refered to Tipper as a "cultural terrorist".
Bluenosed nimrods like Ernest Hollings (in reference to "bad" music lyrics, he said "If I could find a way to do away with them Constitutionally, I would"; and the absolute sheer stoopidity of the mischaracterization of Twisted Sister as a "satanic" rock band... it's humorous now, but back then, these people were serious.
And now we're seeing another ripple in the pond. Let Godvernment Almighty take care of it! That's the "answer"?
Of course not. Murder should be illegal, as should theft, rape, assault, and lots of other real crimes in which victims are objectively harmed. There are an ample number of real crimes and real criminals to keep our law enforcement agencies and our justice system fully occupied.
Speech and other forms of expression (written words, movies, video games, etc.) are not criminal, no matter how hateful or offensive or stupid or ridiculous or shocking or immoral some people may find them. You may find some of that expression to be unpleasant and objectionable, but you are just going to have to learn to tolerate it if you are going to live in a free society rather than a regimented dictatorship or theocracy.
Unless it causes direct, tangible harm to others (e.g., the famous dictum about not yelling fire in a crowded theater, because the resulting panic and stampede could result in injury and death), all such expression is protected by the First Amendment.
How could expanding the power of something reduce it "to meaninglessness???"
This crap of giving kids unlimited rights is a 20'th century invention to polute our kids minds into little socialist robots. In a democratic republic, we should be able to make our laws for the general welfare of the people living there without interference. More and more of our laws are deemed unconstitutional by activist courts thereby nullifying our votes. We are fooling ourselves if we thing the country is free. We are under the boot of tryany since Roe v. Wade. The courts used NO precident in that or school prayer laws to overturn the will of the people.
We can argue whether or not something is free speech for an adult, but I should have complete control over my children, as long as I don't cause harm, if I so choose. Is anyone going to argue my child is harmed by NOT being able to play "Grand Theft Auto"?If the majorty wants the law, what's the problem? I personally am a little tired of courts nullifying my votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.