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.
Under its own Constitution, it could. But U.S. Constitution might have something to say about it. Not the case with laws regulating video games.
Good for the judge.
Jack Thompson's got about as much credibility in my book as Srah Brady.
"C'mon, Dick, it's the only education we got!"
When I was in high school, I played "Wolfenstein 3D" - the first of the first-person shooter games that hit the market. I've also played DOOM and Duke Nukem. I also enjoy naval simulations like Harpoon 3 for the PC (where I can knock off more folks in an INSTANT using tactical nukes than I could playing Wolf 3D for hours) and Harpoon miniatures.
Let me add that I turn into a pile of mush in the presence of guinea pigs, kittens, and (to a lesser extent) puppies. I feel safe from charges of being a total softie due to a taste for veal parmesan.
I consider myself well-adjusted, DESPITE playing the violent video games as a teenager.
We got problems in America. Violent video games are NOT one of them.
Xander Cage put it so well...
I might need to pop XXX in the DVD player when I get back. :)
There are a couple of problems...
1)The Judge who is abusing the Constitution... saying basically I disagree with the law; therefore, I strike it down... which is Judicial Activism... do you agree? (misrepresenting the Constitution to fit the judge's needs)
2)I am not talking about Castle Wolfenstien where you blow up Nazis... I am talking about Sin City and Grand Treft Auto... that shouldn't even be on the market... especially for 14 years old...
3)Should 8 year olds be allowed to buy any game they want?
The Legislative branch should decide... they are suppose to represent the views of the people... people should not be forced to live the morality of the liberals or liberatians...
There's two things wrong with it:
1 - nobody has ever proven by even the slightest degree that ANY video game is harmful
2 - kids stop being kids at 18, old enough to vote old enough to buy what you want
What about the Constitutionality of the law?
Movie ratings are strictly voluntary compliance. The only law backing them up is contract law because the studios get pretty mad if they get a lot of complaints about a theater not enforcing the ratings limitations. The ratings themselves have no legal authority, though x42 did talk about giving them some legal force for a couple days, his Hollywood budies seemed to have quickly talked him out of it though.
They restricted free speech. Games CAN be made with political points, they usually aren't and the ones that do usually stink and don't sell well, but it's a communication medium like any other.
Sin City and GTA are great games. They're built around the best driving simulation in the industry. Now I wouldn't let a kid play them, but that's a parental decision not a governmental decision.
Actually, a State CAN bring back slavery, under limited circumstances
Thirteenth Amendment: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
Commit a felony, and there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a state from making you pick cotton for the rest of your life. States would have chain-gangs of criminals doing road repair in the South in the early 20th Century
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.