St. Louis County's regulations on video games upheld [video games not protected speech]

Nando Times ^ | April 25, 2002

[John Jorsett]

ST. LOUIS (April 25, 2002 9:04 a.m. EDT) - A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech.

Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh, in a ruling issued Friday, rejected a request by a video game industry group to throw out a St. Louis County ordinance regulating access to arcade and home video games.

The county must now decide whether to ask Limbaugh to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Interactive Digital Software Association, county Counselor Patricia Redington said Monday.

The ordinance, passed in 2000, would require children under 17 to have parental consent before they can buy violent or sexually explicit video games or play similar arcade games. The council has suspended implementation of the ordinance until July 1.

The video game group called the ruling wrong on the facts and the law.

"The decision is clearly in conflict with virtually every other federal court decision on this and related issues," group President Doug Lowenstein said in a statement. "We're confident that our position will be sustained on appeal."

Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

Limbaugh said the county has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional health of its children and assisting parents as guardians of their children's well-being.

St. Louis County modeled its ordinance after one in Indianapolis. That ordinance has been invalidated by a federal appeals court in Chicago.

[freeeee]

Limbaugh said the county has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional health of ITS children and assisting parents as guardians of their children's well-being.

Whose children???

[spqrzilla9]

This ruling won't last long.

[John Jorsett]

Did you miss the memo? All children belong to the government. Just like all our money does. It just lets us keep a little of it as long as we don't make too much of a fuss.

[Arkie2]

This will be overturned now that our Supreme Court has determined that digital child pornography is protected free speech.

[jlogajan]

Virtual, not mere digital.

[freeeee]

This will be overturned now that our Supreme Court has determined that digital child pornography is protected free speech

As much as I don't like this law because it is more nanny state legislation, I wish it had been upheld on 10th Amendment grounds - such a case is a local issue and has no place in a federal court.

And then I would challenge the law in state court under the Missouri constitution (if it gave such protection). Failing that, I would work to have it overturned in the state legislature.

[Arkie2]

I stand corrected.

[John Jorsett]

Personally, I don't want any restrictions on video games. I consider them as much "works of art" as paintings, and any attempts to regulate them would just be the start down a path I don't want traveled.

[ikanakattara]

This is absolutely outrageous. How could a video game not be considered "speech?" For that matter, how could a board game not be considered "speech" and entitled to constitutional protection either?

[Anotherpundit]

There are *so* many video games that have express, openly political messages -- play Deus Ex and tell me it's less of a political statement than, say, "Cum Crazed Sluts III."