Posted on 08/25/2006 12:46:51 PM PDT by Abathar
BATON ROUGE, La. -- A federal judge has blocked a Louisiana law that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
Judge James Brady said the law violates free speech.
"Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection," Brady wrote in issuing the injunction Thursday.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed the law in June. It placed a ban on video games sold to minors if an average person would conclude they appeal to a morbid interest in violence. Sellers would face fines of up to $2,000, up to one year in prison or both for selling games found offensive.
Brady ruled the law could not be enforced.
The Entertainment Software Association brought the case to court.
The law also sought to ban sale of games to minors if the "average person" would conclude they depict violence that is "patently offensive" to standards in the adult community, and the games are deemed to lack artistic, political or scientific value.
LA must be in a wonderful state of affairs if they are wasting their time bothering with video games.
"Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection"
What kind of an ass is this judge.
A parent's "NO" should overrule any opinion by a judge. I wouldn't need a judge to help me protect my children from media.
I remember my Mom frowning on my watching the Three Stooges.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Another wigged-out judge ruling on a matter
better left to the adults. Since when does a minors free speech right trump a parent's authority?
I suppose they'll rule on mandatory allowance next.
Here's a "depiction of violence" that, if in a video game, would be banned under this law:
.jpg)
Believe it or not, videogames like Call Of Duty, Brothers In Arms, Medal Of Honor, and other historical sims/reenactments have taught kids a lot more about WW2 than they ever got from books - and more important, they make the history come alive in a way that a passive medium like television or books could never do.
Maybe Louisiana could go after Stephen King novels next. Or "Law & Order" reruns. Or.....
I agree with your point about video games helping to popularize history, but I take issue with your statement that books cannot make history come alive. Books are better than video games if the reader is willing to work to imagine the scenery for himself. I think the value of video games as an historical tool stems from their appealing to those who would not take the time and effort to read the books.
Books are not passive. Video games may be interactive but they are more passive insofar as they control the imagery experienced by the viewer. However, a player could still learn the same lessons and be prompted to do some independant learning from the video games as well as from books or movies.
Free speech rights of the video game companies, not minors.
Of course, if you read the decision - or even the original post - it's quite clear.
I didn't mean to imply that the videogames should replace books - in fact, if anything, the games make players want to learn more about the scenario and era.
That said, it's all well and good to read about the terrible assault on Omaha Beach and see the few pictures of it that survived. The first 30 minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan help bring it alive; but the Normandy landing scenes in Call of Duty or Medal Of Honor have to be seen to be believed - and it really drives home at least an inkling of how hard it really was (as well as bringing the terrain alive).
they're also way behind. granholm (mi) signed this same thing into law, and got it overthrown months ago.
"Judge James Brady said the law violates free speech. "Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection," Brady wrote in issuing the injunction Thursday."
Hmmmmm. Perhaps, then, laws against minors consuming alcoholic beverages should be banned. After all, there must be constitutional protections for slurred speech as well ;o)
"Another wigged-out judge ruling on a matter
better left to the adults. "
By getting government out of the decision, the judge *is* leaving it to adults. Parents.
The sale of the violent video games is not being infringed upon, only the sale of the games to minors. The games would continue to be available. So, then, this law would not violate the free speech rights of the video game companies in any way.
This was a Hillary Clinton initiative.
Well, those parents who are actually paying attention to what their children are doing any way. Children whose parents cannot be bothered by the responsibility of parenting are often left to raise themselves (usually to their detriment).
Wonder why that "freedom of speech" thing doesn't apply to prayer?
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.