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.
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.
I was refering to speech... should all speech be legal? (porn, racism, etc.)...
Not everything spoken; written and pictures are protected under the first amendment... (especially for minors under 17)
YOu can't interpret the first amendment how you think the first amendment should be interpreted... you have to look into what it actually means...
It is not a blank check... look at what the founding fathers said about the first amendment...
You have to use their interpretation... not yours to determine what the first amendment means.
I also disagree with your assessment about speech not being harmful...
Nazi Germany being a prime example... they used propaganda saying Jews were RATS... Jews are not human....
Don't you think that had some impact on German society?
I would say that was some direct, tangible evidence... there is more than yelling fire into a theater...
Speech and propaganda can have some major impact on society... and what about lying speech, or slander speech... should that be protected too under your interpretation of the First Amendment?
By the way, did we live under a dictatorship in the early republic where certain things that could be written and certain things could not?
Like I said in the beginning... we do not live in a vacuum.
By the way, this law was limiting the use for kids... now, how is that a violation?
Simple. SHow me in the Constitution where it gives the FedGov the power to ban video games or even set "ratings".
Take your time. I'll wait.
21 to purchase? I thought the age of majority in this country was 18? What ius it with all you people restricting things like this for LEGAL ADULTS?
Seems to me the alcohol laws are 21 or over? Seems to me you have to be 25 to run for Congress? 30 for Senate? 40 for President? there are some restrictions for you.
I guess that is against the Constitution as well?
So are you telling me that our Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution thought it was political speech to have games where you shoot and kill police officers...
Not only that, but then the founding fathers then apply that interpretation of the first amendment to the states...
then applied to minors of 17 or younger....
you are wrong...
You can't apply your interpretation of the first amendment to minors and you can't apply it to states either...
If you don't believe me, read the founding fathers...
If you like your interpretation, vote on the legislatures who write the laws... Do not have the courts misintrepret the first amendment and then apply to state laws.
That is called Judicial Activism... or better yet "the ends justify the means."
Also note, the Constitution sets up age limits for a very specific FEW things. Like holding FEDERAL office. Strictly deliniated and specificly for a purpose.
Don't be obtuse. You may have glanced at the Constitution once, but you don't seem to have retained much of what it said.
"You may have glanced at the Constitution once, but you don't seem to have retained much of what it said."
You mean your interpretation of it...
Libertianism is a philosophy... you are forcing that philosophy through the courts... and that my friend is wrong.
You can't read the Constitution and say... "Freedom of speech"... you must figure out what the founders meant by that freedom... and interpret the Constitution that way...
If you don't like that... you must use the legislative branch to change it... not the courts.
If you don't like it, get your legislators to purpose an Amendment.
Till then, tough crap. Police your own kids.
Who's saying anything about the FedGov? At issue here is a state law.
Can you find the section here where the State is given power to regulate video gaems? I can't find it there either.
So can you yell fire in the theater? that is not in the constitution either.
I like how you handle the yourself... and actual debate/ discussion...
which leads me to some questions...
What about threats against the President? Is that against the Constitution? Or what about a threat to an individual? Are you allowed to do that?
But my major point is what you said... the Judge struck down the constitutionality of the games that minors can buy...
Why can't the state of Washington forbid the selling of games to minor... People over 17 could purchase them...
Article II: "The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington"
That is the only clause in the constitution granting any kind of legislative powers at all, so therefore it's subject only to the limitations contained in that document.
In any case, it's not the job of federal courts to interpret state constitutions.
If these things were truly "protected speech", then any kind of rating system, or any legislative attempt whatsoever to keep them out of the view of minors, would be unconstitutional. Imagine someone trying to pass a law "protecting" minors from unpopular political views.
i agree with what you are generally saying ; )
If the theater is actually on fire, yes. Otherwise, any bodily harm from the stampede and any financial losses are yours to bear.
As I said, don't be obtuse. Argumentum ad reductum is not a winning debate technique.
Using your logic, a State can bring back slavery. Is that really the amount of power you want to give your government? Even at a state level?
So you're telling me it would be constitutional to pass a law prohibitng criticism of the government except in adult company?
This is a prime example of how activist rulings like this actually endanger our rights.
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.