gamepolitics: Will Big MN Win Help in Louisiana? Game Industry Lawyers Hope So

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-08-02 07:45:00

Entry tags:

ema, esa, legislation, louisiana, minnesota

Will Big MN Win Help in Louisiana? Game Industry Lawyers Hope So

In the wake of the video game industry's resounding legal victory in Minnesota, industry lawyers are seeking to file a copy of Judge James Rosenbaum's decision with the Federal District Court considering Louisiana's video game law.

On Tuesday, attorneys representing the ESA and EMA filed a motion with Judge James Brady, hoping to introduce the Minnesota decision into the record.

As of yet, Judge Brady has not ruled on the video game industry's request.

(Post a new comment)

	goodrobotus 2006-08-02 12:25 pm UTC (link)
	Makes sense, if nothing else it proves that yet another precedent has been set. Besides you can never have too strong a case for defence :) (Reply to this)

	Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds. yukimurasanada 2006-08-02 12:37 pm UTC (link)
	I wouldn't doubt that the judge would allow it, given the clear relevance to his current case. That being said, the judge has already shown a clear and impresive level of intelligence in the function of his duties, in not allowing jacks AMicus brief, so I have to imagine he'll see the importance of this and let it in. We'll see. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds. nightwng2000 2006-08-02 01:48 pm UTC (link)
	Different law though. Both may be arguable under First Amendment, but each have different methods (most notably that the MN law fined the purchaser rather than the retailer). Will be interesting to see how it's treated. nightwng2000 (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds.

barfo
2006-08-02 07:08 pm UTC (link)

The points that they reference in the brief however seem to eqully apply to common factors of both laws, regardless of whether they are targeted at consumer or retailer.

These points being the findign that video games are free expression and regulation of them is subject to strict scrutiny, that the evidence for harm is not strong enough to meet strict scrutiny and lacks any shred of evidence of causal links, and that by not targeting other forms of violent media the bill is not narrowly tailored enough to meet strict scrutiny.

Basically its just another tick mark in the growing list of legal precedent from other districts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds. jabrwock 2006-08-02 09:55 pm UTC (link)
	Different law though True, but both depend on the following assertions: -That minors don't have the same 1st amendment rights as adults -That parents are incapable of monitoring what their kids are doing -That violent games fosters violence -That games aren't speech Seeing as how the MN Judge rejected all of these, I'd say it's a relavent ruling. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	beardoggx 2006-08-02 01:42 pm UTC (link)
	The judge pretty much made up his mind anyway, it seems, so one more court decision in favor of the industry will just increase the industry's chances of winning. (Reply to this)

	So it should be rolling now... lost_watcher 2006-08-02 05:48 pm UTC (link)
	Well, lets hope this snowball gains momentum. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: So it should be rolling now... curiousthompson 2006-08-03 03:28 am UTC (link)
	Odds are really high now. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Interesting but doesn’t matter

andrew_eisen
2006-08-02 07:09 pm UTC (link)

It will be interesting to see if this is allowed. The laws are pretty different and Brady may want to judge it completely on its own merits.

Louisiana: uses the Miller Test to determine which games fall under the law and the sellers are fined.

Minnesota: uses the ESRB to determine which games fall under the law and the buyers are fined.

Which is not to say precedence is not applicable here, games are still protected speech and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that violent games are harmful.

Will Rosenbaum’s decision be allowed as part of the record? It doesn’t matter, the result will be the same either way.

Andrew Eisen

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Interesting but doesn’t matter lost_watcher 2006-08-03 02:08 am UTC (link)
	Hmm, I thought that Louisiana's also used the ESRB Ratings System as the basis on which the Miller Test could be applied. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Interesting but doesn’t matter jabrwock 2006-08-03 04:13 am UTC (link)
	It will be interesting to see if this is allowed. The laws are pretty different and Brady may want to judge it completely on its own merits. True, but it helps to know what a fellow judge has to say about the various issues that are similar. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Might as well jabrwock 2006-08-02 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	The more "other jurisdictions agree with us" type filings you can submit, the better. Helps to let the judge know he's not alone in feeling the state is overstepping it's authority. Not that they're likely needed, but it helps to crush you're opponent with overwhelming force rather than just barely beat them. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Might as well zippydsmlee 2006-08-03 02:04 am UTC (link)
	Yes but will that stop the politications from mindlessly voteing in these "Save teH chIlDNERN" bills into law or soemthing like it? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Might as well mnementh2230 2006-08-03 04:05 am UTC (link)
	Nothing will stop that in the near future... :P Too many stupid-ass politicians. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Might as well

hayabusa75
2006-08-03 09:01 pm UTC (link)

There has to be an eventual saturation point, though. It seems to me that there will come a time when people realize how ultimately fruitless these crusades are, and that the grandstanding is a deliberate attempt to win votes that just cost TAXPAYER MONEY. When the voters realize that this garbage is actually hitting them in the pocketbook, we'll start to see things shift.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Might as well jabrwock 2006-08-03 04:06 am UTC (link)
	Yes but will that stop the politications from mindlessly voteing in these "Save teH chIlDNERN" bills into law or soemthing like it? No, but it does mean that when it heads back to court, the judge has even more ammo with which to smite it. The more precedent, the less time the judge has to spend thinking about it, and the faster they can pull out the "DENIED" stamp. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cyberskull 2006-08-04 06:42 am UTC (link)
	It's amazing how efficient Louisiana is. After completely cleaning up/repairing the damage done by hurricane Katrina, they now use the leftover money to improve the lives of children in the state! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	terminator44 2006-08-04 12:56 pm UTC (link)
	That post had better be sarcastic. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs