Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-30 18:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:burton guidry, doug moreau, hb1381, jack thompson, judge brady, louisiana, paul smith

Judge Extends Louisiana Restraining Order ...Criticizes Video Game Law During Hearing

Is it back to the drawing board for Jack Thompson?

Based on a breaking news report in the Shreveport Times, a Federal judge today seemed quite critical of Louisiana's new law which seeks to declare video game violence as harmful to minors. Thompson, the Miami attorney and anti-game activist, authored the Louisiana bill while assisting its sponsor, Rep. Roy Burrell.

Judge James Brady extended the temporary restraining order he issued on June 16th while he rules on today's request by the video game industry for an injunction.

According to the Times, Assistant Attorney General Burton Guidry and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau argued that Louisiana already bans sales of alcohol, tobacco and pornography as items deemed harmful to minors.

"That's not speech," Judge Brady said from the bench. Although he did allow that the violence in some games is "horrible, but it's protected... Where is violence not protected (in the First Amendment)?"

"This is more than speech," said Assistant A.G. Guidry, sounding almost as if he had been prepped by Jack Thompson. "This is truly training for violence. You assume the character of a mass murderer. You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points... (video game publishers) cloak themselves in free speech but under that cloak is murder, simulated murder."

Attorney Paul Smith (seen at left), representing the ESA and EMA, argued, "There is no violence exception in the First Amendment. It doesn't even come close to justifying censorship. You can't censor speech because it's going to lead people to do bad things... Video games are played every day by millions of people (who) don't go out and commit crimes," Smith said.

According to the newspaper report, Judge Brady will rule next week on whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction. Significantly, the Judge said that he saw no difference between the Louisiana video game law and a half-dozen others that have already been struck down around the country.

It's impossible to know how the judge will rule, of course, but today's comments from the bench do not bode well for Louisiana's violent video game law.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...


(Post a new comment)


[info]jdmdsp911
2006-06-30 11:06 pm UTC (link)
What was that the AG was saying about this law being different? Maybe the AG should have used someone that actually knows what they are talking about instead of Thompson, but then again if Burrell would have listened to someone who actually knew what they were talking about on this issue instead of Thompson, then the bill would have never been drafted in the first place.

(Reply to this)


[info]zeroxphoenix
2006-06-30 11:12 pm UTC (link)
Video Game Industry: 1. Louisiana/JT: 0.

(Reply to this)


[info]sprngpilot
2006-07-01 12:08 am UTC (link)
Please please PLEASE share JT's reaction when you get it via his usual spam, er, I mean, "press releases". I would love to hear how he's blowing a gasket over this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]curiousthompson
2006-07-01 01:19 am UTC (link)
It's probally "damn you (insert general POORLY done insult towards us)".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Me too!
[info]getwellgamer
2006-07-01 04:34 am UTC (link)
I'd also like to see this. Comedy gold in the making.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]xlorep_darkhelm
2006-07-01 04:36 am UTC (link)
There probably won't be one. Jack's usual response to being beaten is no response, or a response from a completely unrelated event, to poorly attempt to change the subject and regain "control".

(Reply to this) (Parent)
There won't be a reaction
[info]dog_welder
2006-07-01 12:49 pm UTC (link)
Jack won't react to this, except in maybe 6 months or so he'll add this to his list of "victories." You know, how he got Howard Stern kicked off the air, brought Take Two to it's knees singlehandedly and successfully had anti-game legislation passed in Louisiana.

He usually doesn't mention that Howard Stern simply moved to satellite radio, Take Two's own incompetence is destroying them or that the legislation was overturned.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: There won't be a reaction
[info]phantompvp
2006-07-01 04:50 pm UTC (link)
Heck, he still talks about how he represented the family in Paducah, but no one ever calls him on the fact that he lost that case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]finaleve
2006-07-01 12:15 am UTC (link)
Hm, violence is bad, yes. So is stretching the truth, because it never did anyone so much good in the end. And look at this, it seems to be happening

(Reply to this)

OY!
[info]jesdk
2006-07-01 12:21 am UTC (link)
Video games are played every day by millions of people (who) don't go out and commit crimes," Smith said.

/FACT!

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: OY!
[info]dreamshade
2006-07-01 01:16 am UTC (link)
I swear, I'm starting to like judges these days so much more than politicians. Some of them have ideologies that I disagree with, but they seem to have a very good rate of actually reading the fucking article studying the matter at hand and making informed judgements.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
oh snap!
[info]enmitywithin
2006-07-01 01:38 am UTC (link)
he musta read my tearing apart of the brief or somethin. either that or this guy is smart

(Reply to this)


[info]jabrwock
2006-07-01 02:14 am UTC (link)
Where is violence not protected (in the First Amendment)?

You know, I don't think they've ever actually answered that. They've always dodged it, by either:

a) saying it's not speech
b) saying it's "harmful" or "against community standards"

But they've never actually said why depictions of violence aren't protected.

I guess because then they'd have to justify why they're only targetting games, and not other depictions of violence...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nightwng2000
2006-07-01 03:24 am UTC (link)
"Where is violence not protected (in the First Amendment)?"

Violence as an ACT isn't protected by the First Amendment. I'm talking about the actual act of violence commited by one individual against another individual.

As a "depiction", however, that actually depends.

When violence is depicted in speech as a direct incite to commit the act, whether telling an individual or a group of individuals to commit the act, it has been debated, and even legislation has been passed I believe, that such violent speech is not protected. It is also true that speech that may inflame individuals into commiting violence may also not be protected.

However, to my knowledge, violence depicted in a fictional setting, whether in a virtual setting of a computer or video game, or on TV, in a movie, or in a book, has not, to date, been defined as not being protected speech by the First Amendment.

That appears to be the problem in the overall issue. Violence, as used in this issue, is a blanket term. It is not defined in its seperate formats as above. Which, technically, does lead to misinformation and miscommunication, sometimes intentionally by some individuals.

After all, which would actually be considered more harmful to anyone, minors or otherwise:

(1) A speech filled with bigotry and hated against other living individuals, whether in a religious setting or not, that doesn't say commit violent acts, but inflames some individuals in the audience enough to commit violence.

(2) A speech filled with anger against bigotry and hate crimes commited against the speakers. A speech which openly demands violent retaliation.

(3) A book, TV show, movie, video game, etc, of fiction creation that contains depictions of violence, even allowing individuals to commit violent acts ONLY in the fictional setting and ONLY against fictional characters.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
"Violent" speech
[info]brerwolf
2006-07-01 06:12 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I can argue convincingly that we should kill all the
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<insulting [...] racial/religious>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Actually, I can argue convincingly that we should kill all the <insulting racial/religious epitheth> to a room full of neo-nazis, and it's protected. To cross the line I have to go from "they need to die, when we come to power we will kill them all" to "Come on, brothers, chinatown is three blocks this way and you have your guns, follow me!". It has to be speech that incites -imminent- lawless action, not just inciting it at some undisclosed point. On the other hand, that sort of hate speech will put you in prison in Europe. Lovely precedent there, jailtime for any speech sufficiently politically unpopular. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that the entire point of preserving freedom of speech is to protect the things that are offensive and unpopular. Mainstream popular speech doesn't -need- any protection.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Second Verse, Same as the First...
[info]getwellgamer
2006-07-01 04:36 am UTC (link)
It really is getting tiring tosee these bills signed in only to be struck down again. GP, any idea how much taxpayer money the various states have blown on ineffectual, unnecessary legislation?

(Reply to this)


[info]xlorep_darkhelm
2006-07-01 04:42 am UTC (link)
"...cloak themselves in free speech but under that cloak is murder, simulated murder."


Last I checked, murder is illegal, simulated murder is not. Otherwise there would be serious legal ramifications for paintball games.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mooglegunner
2006-07-01 02:11 pm UTC (link)
What happens if the murder victem refuses to press charges?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sleepchamber
2006-07-03 06:12 am UTC (link)
I've never seen a murder victim do anything, much less press charges.
BaDum-TSH

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Video game industry's undefeated streak will most likely continue
[info]beardoggx
2006-07-01 04:19 pm UTC (link)
After the assistant Attorney General's Jack-esque comment, from NOLA.com:

Brady interrupted him, saying: "It is horrible but it is protected" as free speech.

Brady said he has examined the laws of other states where courts have declared the statutes unconstitutional and he can find no difference in the Louisiana law, despite claims by Guidry that it is more narrowly drawn.

"It looks like they (legislative drafters) just copied them" from the other states, Brady said.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1151734289140970.xml&coll=1

(Reply to this)


[info]premo_maggot
2006-07-01 04:34 pm UTC (link)
hooray for checks and balances!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…