gamepolitics: Minnesota Court Filing Shows Issues in Video Game Law Appeal

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-08-30 06:42:00

Entry tags:

first amendment, judge rosenbaum, mike hatch, minnesota

Minnesota Court Filing Shows Issues in Video Game Law Appeal

Yesterday, GamePolitics reported on Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch's plans to appeal a July federal court decision which ruled that the state's "fine the buyer" video game law was unconstitutional.

Hatch, of course, riled gamers earlier in June with language in a court filing which described some games as "worthless, disgusting speech" and "speech of very low societal value."

Hatch, a Democrat, also happens to be running for Governor and faces an uphill battle against incumbent Republican Tim Pawlenty, who signed the bill into law, thus triggering the legal battle with the video game industry.

In overturning the Minnesota law, Federal Judge James Rosenbaum issued a stinging rebuke to Hatch, writing, ""The First Amendment... was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech. The Court declines the State's invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind."

Hatch's appeal indicates that the Minnesota A.G. does not believe a settlement can be reached with the video game industry. The court filing also shows that Hatch's appeal will turn on five legal issues (note - the wording below is A.G. Hatch's, not GP's):

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"
"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"
"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"
"Did the District Court err in holding that (the law) is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interests in protecting minors from harm?"
"Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority..."

(Post a new comment)

Those questions have already been answered

beardoggx
2006-08-30 11:32 am UTC (link)

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"

Yes, they are a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"

No, it's not.

"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"

No, it didn't.

"Did the District Court err in holding that (the law) is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interests in protecting minors from harm?"

No, it didn't.

"Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority..."

No, it didn't.

Like I said yesterday, this appeal will go to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals(which covers Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Missouri), which already has ruled in favor of the industry.

Mike Hatch is just wasting time and Minnesota taxpayer money on a dead issue.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Those questions have already been answered

dreamshade
2006-08-30 12:37 pm UTC (link)

"...unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"

Wait, what are these "other games" that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?

"Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority..."

And now we're just not making sense. I don't even understand where this comes from. How is putting in place an independent arbiter to judge content an act of "legislative authority?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Those questions have already been answered

beardoggx
2006-08-30 01:08 pm UTC (link)

Wait, what are these "other games" that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?

I have no clue what that moron Hatch meant by that. That's another case of Hatch talking out his ass, like he always has been.

And now we're just not making sense. I don't even understand where this comes from. How is putting in place an independent arbiter to judge content an act of "legislative authority?"

The industry successfully argued that Minnesota violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state basically gave the power of government to define what type of expression is illegal to a private third party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Those questions have already been answered grey_poet 2006-08-30 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	The game of football and other such sports do not enjoy 1st Ammendment protection since they are not speech. However, to make that claim about videogames one would have to divorce the mechanics of play from the artistic elements of presentation. Can't do it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I'll make this easy on Hatch. dog_welder 2006-08-30 11:32 am UTC (link)
	Maybe this will save Minnesota some money. All he has to do is look to the plethora of other similar rulings from throughout the county. Here are the answers he seeks: Yes No No No No (In that order.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: I'll make this easy on Hatch. xwaix 2006-08-30 01:41 pm UTC (link)
	Well, the first question was an "A or B" more than a "yes or no," (are video games A. protected, or B. not), so the answer would be "A" in that case. Sorry, I'm just being nitpicky. =P (Reply to this) (Parent)

	anticron 2006-08-30 12:23 pm UTC (link)
	Honestly, Hatch doesn't care that his appeal will be shot down. It really doesn't matter to him that he wants to waste even more of his would-be constituents' tax dollars. It's all about publicity. "Won't someone think of the children?" (Reply to this) (Thread)

	chadius 2006-08-30 01:27 pm UTC (link)
	"Won't someone think of the children until elections are over?" Fixed it for ya ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)

konrad_arflane
2006-08-30 12:52 pm UTC (link)

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"

In a different context, this would actually be an interesting question. I assume that by "unprotected entertainment" he is referring to slot machines or maybe pinball, or maybe even board games (is checkers protected speech?). I would have a hard time arguing that Pong should be protected speech, for instance.

However, in the current context, it's a stupid question. Video games are obviously capable of communicating stories or even political viewpoints. Anyone who's played any type of modern game would know that.

"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"

This question blatantly assumes the conclusion. The obvious counter-question is "do patently offensive video games *have* the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings"? And further, would any of these patently offensive video games be covered by the law in question (unlike, say, Border Patrol)?

"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"

Substantial empirical evidence? Pull the other one.

The remaining two points don't even seem worth countering. I would assume that an attorney general would be familiar with case law.

(Reply to this)

	These crazy old people odc100 2006-08-30 01:21 pm UTC (link)
	They make me smile to live in the UK. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: These crazy old people bigman_k 2006-08-30 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	or Canada. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: These crazy old people terminator44 2006-08-30 08:41 pm UTC (link)
	What about Keith Vaz? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: These crazy old people ianc14 2006-08-30 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	He cant do much. Thankfully. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: These crazy old people

odc100
2006-08-30 11:32 pm UTC (link)

Thankfully no one takes Mr Vaz seriously, the BBFC also has explained its ratings system and the fact it will not censor games excellently. He has no grounds. Our games ratings are the same as video/DVD ratings except about 2 times as large, people know exactly what they are getting.

Over here it is also illegal for a minor to buy them. So he has no room to wave his agenda around at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: These crazy old people terminator44 2006-08-31 01:35 am UTC (link)
	Hmmmm, point taken. Wait, wasn't Vaz also involved in some kind of scandal? I imagine that would also hurt your credibility. Regardless, Hatch will fail miserably in the U.S. just as Vaz has failed in the U.K. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Loser.

enmitywithin
2006-08-30 01:45 pm UTC (link)

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"
this question has pretty much been answered already. yes they are protected, as the answer of at least 6 courts saying so.

"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"
are patently offensive movies, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human being, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?
two words
UNRATED VERSION

"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"

well, if any proof actually existed, you might be able to prove this

"Did the District Court err in holding that (the law) is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interests in protecting minors from harm?"
no, because if they had, this could have been taken to the next level of court, but it wasn't.

"Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority..."
when ifs and butts are candy and nuts, we all lose teeth to tooth decay. The ESRB alreayd was judged as constituational before congress, therefore you sir, lose

(Reply to this)

	it still gets me semperar 2006-08-30 01:54 pm UTC (link)
	"The First Amendment... was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes 'worthless' or 'disgusting' speech. The Court declines the State's invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind." It still makes my heart all aflutter when I read that. Tee hee. (Reply to this)

	This guy jsut won't quit. elixer44 2006-08-30 01:59 pm UTC (link)
	And he has no idea what he's talking about. I just hope he doesn't become govenor. (Reply to this)

Just to clear one thing up...

the_attorney
2006-08-30 02:37 pm UTC (link)

Dennis,

The appeal does not indicate that settlement talks were held. I assume you are referencing the boxes checked off at the bottom of the form, correct? That is an indication from the filing attorney that he has spoken to HIS client (in this case the state) in an attempt to discuss the possibility of settlement. All that form states is that the State has discussed whether or not they think this can settle, and have determined that it cannot (thus the checking of the second box). This form is a guideline for the appellate judge. If you have discussed settlement with your client, and think settlement is possible, after you file the appeal the Judge will try and get the two parties together to hash things out.

This is why you see a large number of appeals settled before trial (in civil cases). The "winning" party in the lower courts may accept a smaller (or altered form) judgment in exchange for avoiding the costs associated with a second trial.

The_Attorney

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Just to clear one thing up... gamepolitics 2006-08-30 02:45 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, inside knowledge like that - it's why we love having you around! Well, it's not the only reason... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just to clear one thing up... the_attorney 2006-08-30 02:49 pm UTC (link)
	I just like being useful. :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just to clear one thing up... gamepolitics 2006-08-30 02:55 pm UTC (link)
	yes, and we appreciate it. I made a small fix based on what you said. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Just to clear one thing up...

beacon80
2006-08-30 05:36 pm UTC (link)

I seek your knowledge and opinion on these matters.
Is there any reason the ESA should even consider a settlement in the first place? It sounds to me like that not only do they have a large amount of precident on their side, but the judge involved clearly agrees with them.
I realize that, with my lack of legal training, there might be something I'm missing or do not understand, but from my POV the only settlement the ESA should accept from Hatch is "We'll shut the hell up. Sorry for wasting your time. Here's your legal fees back."
Thanks in advance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just to clear one thing up... the_attorney 2006-08-30 08:05 pm UTC (link)
	No, there isn't. :-) (Reply to this) (Parent)

n0m4n
2006-08-30 02:45 pm UTC (link)

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"

Wasn't this already answered in court? I thought it was in the 80s when Lieberman was leading the charge on games and that it was enforced ever since.

"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"

Now I am almost damn sure this was answered in a previous case. Didn't the courts rule that they can not deem anything inappropriate for children and that they are entitled to the same rights as adults in this matter.

(Reply to this)

finaleve
2006-08-30 02:47 pm UTC (link)

Worthless and disgusting speech, I like that. Why? Because that's 2 words that describe the whole "Blame video games" craze that everyone keeps coming upon.

The Gov't has no real right to invade what we have to do. It may run his life, but we aren't out to become mister leader now. We are out to live out our lives, and to enjoy and learn. Not to have our lungs squeezed because the air is .0000001% different from the air the demi-gods want us to breathe.

Now, we could just say "Oh well, I'm sorry for blowing your money away citizens. Let's make it better by having a bake sale to make up for my complete fuck up." but instead we get "MY GAWD! THEY DIDN"T LIKE MY SPER FANTABULOUS BILL? IT WAS SO AWESOME THAT IM GONNA BLOW MORE MONEY AWAY THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR THINGS LIKE SCHOOLS!! WE GOTTA THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

...I mean, com'on.

(Reply to this)

	These issues ace_of_sevens 2006-08-30 03:14 pm UTC (link)
	Almost every issue on this list has a lot of precendent behind the video game industry's side. The only one that doesn't is point four, which is very much specific to this piece of legislation. Since no other law fines the buyers and it's been admitted to be unenforceable and therefore ineffective, there's no way they're winnign on this point, either. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: These issues

barfo
2006-08-30 04:59 pm UTC (link)

Actually the ruling that the law is not narrowly tailored to acheive the stated aim comes up in all (or nearly) of these cases, its not specific to this case, so there is as much legal precedent there as well. The general form this takes is that the bill is not narrowly tailored because it ignores the possibility of ratings education campaigns (which could acheive the same end in a less restrictive manner), and that they oversee only violent games and not movies, TV, etc (meaning that the law would not really address the harms it claims to fix). Both of these precedents apply as well to this law as the previous fine the retailer laws.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: These issues ace_of_sevens 2006-08-31 12:21 pm UTC (link)
	The issue of whether other laws were as narrowly tailored as possible has come up, but as this is significantly different than any other laws that have faced court challenges, I don't see how it would be a very strong precedent. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Blined by the light zippydsmlee 2006-08-30 04:06 pm UTC (link)
	Oh well hes gone now,compeltly blinded by the chance of gettign votes at the $$$ of the tax payer....BLowing smoke and gass from both ends someone light a match already next..... (Reply to this)

	I wonder how he'll feel jabrwock 2006-08-30 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	after the judge slaps him with the ESA's legal fees? Will he still be super duper enthusiastic about taking this to the next level? Or do they only do that once the state gives up the fight? (Reply to this)

Let's take this from a different angle

boffo97
2006-08-30 05:08 pm UTC (link)

"Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?"

False question. No game is devoid of First Amendment protection except for sexually explicit games, which would be classified as obscene, and which, hence, we are not talking about here.

"Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?"

First off, patently offensive is a value judgment. Maybe I find you patently offensive, Mike Hatch. You then go into a leading question, implying that the game debases and brutalizes humans. It's also unclear as to whether you're referring to actual or virtual humans. Finally, several, legal tests have ruled obscenity standards can only apply to sexual conduct.

"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"

Not in the slightest, because that proof simply doesn't exist. It's been rejected by court after court after court. It also flies in the fact of common sense given the Department of Justice's own figures that show as consoles and these type of games have become more prevalent in homes, crime has actually gone DOWN.

Crime happens because of bad parents and bad kids. Not because of games. What you're trying to do is create a scapegoat and make things WORSE.

"Did the District Court err in holding that (the law) is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interests in protecting minors from harm?"

Not at all. As above, it does no such thing. It simply creates a scapegoat at the expense of an industry. Sure it's an industry Mike Hatch and his constiutents have no interest in, but that shouldn't matter.

"Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority..."

This is the easiest one. NO. *Even Jack Thompson knows and admits this.* A Federal Law canot use a private body as the basis for restrictions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

a misleading question

jabrwock
2006-08-30 07:30 pm UTC (link)

False question. No game is devoid of First Amendment protection except for sexually explicit games

It's actually a misleading question, not a false one. It would be as if he were asking if "The Longest Yard" the movie was not speech, just because football isn't. Yeah it's a movie about football, which isn't speech (football, not the movie), but it's a story ABOUT football, which makes it speech.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Let's take this from a different angle

barfo
2006-08-30 09:18 pm UTC (link)

"False question. No game is devoid of First Amendment protection except for sexually explicit games, which would be classified as obscene, and which, hence, we are not talking about here."

Well I dont know the actual case law to know if he actually has much of an argument in terms of actual past court cases, but the "games" he is referring to are non-video games i think. For ex, a game of blackjack is not protected by the first amendment, nor is say chess or checkers (as others have pointed out in this comments section). Obviously there are some serious flaws in that argument since the majority of video games now days obviously are free speech, and thus considering that they and chess are both 'games', and chess does not enjoy 1st Amendment protection, so video games must not is an obvious fallacy (type: false analogy).

Even more interesting than that, however is that the sort of argument they are presenting is sort of a self-defeating Catch-22 even for that subset of games (of whatever type) that one would expect not to be protected by the First Amendment. This is because at its core, the crux of their argument is to regulate what they feel to be objectionable or harmful content in games (though they always try and spin it as if its an essential deduction following out of the scientific findings of 'harm' to obscure this fact), and in so doing they seem to assume the games are capable of holding a free speech message so that even if the game is a type that normally probably doesnt have free speech content, they cannot really argue that the specific game they want to regulate has no content because they must themselves bring up as evidence the content that is the basis for why thy want to regulate it.

For example, chess obviously is a game that at its base is not free speech (it is merely an opening setup pattern and specific rules for how and in what order those pieces move, conditions for removing or adding pieces to the board, and what constitutes the end of the game in victory or draw). But because of that there would normally be no content-based reason to want to restrict or ban chess. IE one could not simultaneously argue that some content of chess was objectionable and that chess had no content, since the first argument has the negative of the second as a basic premise.

So say for example i make a chess board where the pieces are extremely gruesome or violent and say the big innovation of my chess board is that when you take a piece you don't just remove it form the board but you act out a little play of one piece killing another (bear with me i realize this analogy is a bit strained). Now say some politicians feel this is inappropriate for kids and want to restrict the sale of this game to kids because of the staple of standard video game reasons, the imagery is inappropriate for them and may harm them, increase aggression, whatever and that the game is encouraging kids to act out inappropriately and this may then incite them to cause real harm int he world etc etc.

Those politicians might very well say "chess is just a game, its not art it has no first amendment protection," however the astute observer notes that its not the chess per se that is the problem (they arent trying to equally restrict all sales of all chess sets), it is the particular implementation of my version of chess that they dont like, and in fact to argue the rationale for restricting my chess by saying that some of its content is objectionable they must clearly assent to the idea that there is some content in there (and in fact they must enter into evidence examples of that very content). Otherwise, if one accepts the premise that there is no artistic content to my mere game, then there is no possible argument that the censors can make for banning my particular form of chess compared to any other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

if it has no content then how do you restrict the content

jabrwock
2006-08-30 09:50 pm UTC (link)

You win. My head hurts. ;)

I can't remember the guy's name, but a constitutional expert looking into possible ways to restrict violent games looked at exactly that point, and pointed out the same difficulties.

He used an FPS for his analogy, and stated that either you ban minors from buying all FPS's, which is not narrowly tailored, or you only ban FPSs that have certain content, which satisfies the narrow tailoring, but inherently invokes the 1st amendment since you're admitting that you're judging the content, not the FPS.

So when Jack holds up a copy of GTA:SA, and says it's not speech, *technically* he is correct, for the game itself is but a device used to tell a story. BUT he's trying to ban the device itself *based* on the story told on the device. Which means he's judging the story, and the story itself has 1st Amendment protections.

It would be like holding up a book, and stating "This is not literature, it's just ink on paper." Which would technically be correct, albight misleading. And certainly not justification for banning books. Because in order to decide what books to ban, you'd have to admit that the ink on the paper tells a story, and the story is protected.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Let's take this from a different angle boffo97 2006-08-30 10:23 pm UTC (link)
	OK, I think I can simplify this. It isn't that football or chess or other games like that aren't protected forms of speech like Hatch says. It's that they simply aren't speech at all because they aren't conveying any sort of idea. The second you cross that line and convey ANY idea whatsoever of any quality, it's speech, and is protected. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Let's take this from a different angle

barfo
2006-08-30 11:56 pm UTC (link)

Exactly what i said.. :p

Although its a bit more complex, because there exists the possibility that you could have speech thats not protected, but so far thats just a category of one which is sexually explicit speech, until and unless the current and possible future) wingnut conservative appointees on the supreme court decide to ditch that precedent along with the other ones (eg Roe) they are planning ot rewrite.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

beacon80
2006-08-30 05:45 pm UTC (link)

I'm not the first, but here's my answers to the 5 questions.
1) Why shouldn't they? If it's a form of speech, it gets First Amendment rights.
2) Can you patent offensiveness? More seriously, is there any proof of the effects, and are offensive movies, books, TV shows, etc. unprotected obscene speech as to minors? Those questions need to be answered before a "yes" could even be honestly considered here.
3) No, the DC seems pretty unerring on that. The First Amendment is not something to be waved lightly. If you can't prove said harm, or at least counter the empirical evidence implying that video games don't cause such harm (such as the significant drop in violent youth crime in the past decade), then is that really enough to wave the First Amendment?
4) If memory serves, this law, far from being narrowly tailored, is the most vaguely worded attempt at video game legislation yet.
5) This one seems pretty black and white. Look at the Fourteenth Amendment. And while you're at it, you might want to give the first one another read.

(Reply to this)

	"Worthless, disgusting, low societal value" hayabusa75 2006-08-30 06:09 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, someone had the adjective flakes for breakfast! Though I think it's more likely the inspiration came from that toupee of his. (Reply to this)

jabrwock
2006-08-30 07:51 pm UTC (link)

Are video games a protected form of speech under the First Amendment, or unprotected entertainment like other games that do not enjoy First Amendment protection?

A higher court with authority over your jurisdiction (the 8th Circuit) has already ruled that yes, video games are a protected form of speech under the 1st. So I think the court will take about 2 seconds ruling on that one. As for the 2nd part of this question, it's a misleading question as it implies that since the subject matter might not be protected, the story itself is not. This has also been addressed by other courts as well as many constitutional experts, and their opinion seems to be that the story and the "gameplay" are inseperable.

Are patently offensive video games, which have the effect of debasing and brutalizing human beings, unprotected obscene speech as to minors?

Ignoring the colourful language, the legal answer is no. Unprotected obscene speech as to minors is clearly defined by the US Supreme Court as applying only to sexual conduct. The definition of such is left to local authorities, but you'd have a hard time trying to argue that bashing someone over the head is covered by "sexual conduct".

I'll answer this next one in two parts
Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof

Why not? The Supreme Court is pretty clear on that one. Absent sufficient evidence, the state cannot prove that it has an interest in protecting minors.

in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?

"substantial"? Every judge to date has agreed that the evidence is not "substantial". Barely "adequate". And you can't expect me to reasonably infer that minors will turn into homocidal maniacs simply because studies show that horns are honked longer, or that you are desensitized during the 5 minutes following a 1 hour violent gaming session...

Come talk to me when you complete that 5 year study. Or at least a "behavioral/attitude differences observed for 2 weeks following an intense month of violent game playing vs equally challenging and competitive yet non violent game playing" study.

Hmm, maybe I'll talk to my university's Psych lab, get them to add that to their list of suggestions for theses...

Did the District Court err in holding that (the law) is not narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interests in protecting minors from harm?

Punishing all minors who buy any mature games is certainly not narrowly tailored. To be narrowly tailored, one would have to examine all mature games on a case by case basis. Similar to how a government run ratings board would work.

Did the District Court err in holding that the Act's adoption of the ESRB rating system is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority...

Do I even have to quote the 14th Amendment Section 1 here? Since ESRB ratings cannot be appealed to any court in the US, due process cannot be followed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

boffo97
2006-08-30 10:47 pm UTC (link)

=====
Ignoring the colourful language, the legal answer is no. Unprotected obscene speech as to minors is clearly defined by the US Supreme Court as applying only to sexual conduct. The definition of such is left to local authorities, but you'd have a hard time trying to argue that bashing someone over the head is covered by "sexual conduct".
=====

Obviously, whenever Person A bashes Person B over the head in a video game, Game Critic C sees it as a metaphor for A & B doing the nasty.

Clearly, C has deep rooted issues.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Well, Actually, Yes!

cdarklock
2006-08-31 12:18 am UTC (link)

Clotaire Rapaille is of the opinion that American culture views sex as violence, and the only reason this doesn't cause more problems for American culture is that we also just so happen to be *fascinated* by violence. Which explains a lot.

His book "The Culture Code" was a great read, although I've found many people to disagree violently with his ideas. You can find it on Amazon. I got it in a package deal with "Freakonomics", which was somewhat less educational but just as entertaining.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

goodrobotus
2006-08-31 12:42 am UTC (link)

A decent study into this would take at least five years, you'd need to isolate each 'kind' of media involved in a game, which involves both Audio and Visual elements. After all, what if it is the aggressive soundtrack that is having this effect on the players and nothing to do with interaction whatsoever?

Even then, you will probably still get the same results, which are 'This stimulus affects this area of the brain.'. What is never mentioned is that the same part of the brain used to control 'violence' is also used to control 'competiteveness'. Any competitive sport will engage that area of the brain to a degree, in some cases, a larger degree (American Football). Violence, and competition are basic survival/mating behaviour, and are rooted in what's called the 'Lizard Brain', but exactly how that part of the brain works is as much a mystery as the rest of the brain, just because it's active doesn't mean that we have a clue what it is doing.

It's only extreme arrogance on the part of people who would use these results to meet a personal agenda that them think that they know more about the human brain than phsychologists do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

8th district is full of nutcases tho....

diceman82
2006-08-31 12:21 pm UTC (link)

I mean not to long ago thay ruled"haveing a large sum of money on ones person automaticly constitutes a crime and reason for immmediate arrest"some poor guy was pooling his money he worked years to get to start up a bizness and was pulled over by a highway patrolman and his dog.the dog went berzerk becuase he misidentified the mans heart pills as drugs.They serach his car and find a suitcase he was going toi use to buy a resturaunt with.

they didnt find drugs
they didnt find anything drug related
and the man had no history of using drugs/selling them

the verdict:him being arrested and his lifes savings being confiscated permenently(yes he never got it back)he appeals to the 8th district and thay say this:"a large sum of money automaticly constitutes a crime has/will take place and its the right of police to permenently seize said money to prevent such crime from taking place".

120k gone just like that and with them never proving he was doing anything wrong to begin with(wtf ever happenhed to innocent till proven guilty?).

aside from that im advocating that thiers always a slim chance they get the retarded judge that will see this bill as constitutional as it seems lately america has no qualms about voilating thier own poeples rights.

(Reply to this)

It's already been decided...

billboy2000
2006-08-31 02:37 pm UTC (link)

"Did the District Court err in deciding that the State may not restrict the purchase or rental of violent video games by minors absent scientifically certain proof that violent video games cause harm to minors and in rejecting the substantial empirical evidence the State submitted from which harm to minors' psychological well-being and moral and ethical development can reasonably be inferred?"

A 2001 law in Illinois quote "restricting minors' access to arcade games that might appeal to a 'morbid' interest in violence." was shot down by the the 7th circuit court of appeals on the grounds that "The common sense reaction to the Indianapolis ordinance could be overcome by social scientific evidence, but has not been," and ""The ordinance curtails freedom of expression significantly and, on this record, without any offsetting justification."

nuff said

(Reply to this)

MN Gov Race

dclam
2006-08-31 05:46 pm UTC (link)

For those of you who don't live here (MN), it's important to note that the elections have not really started yet. The various political parties have "endorsed" candidates for office, but the primary elections do not take place until Sept. 12th. Basically this means that most polling is pretty premature. Wikipedia's tally of polls for this race are kinda all over the place.

And just to sort of clarify things a bit, I should probably add that I won't be voting for Pawlenty. It's important to remember that he signed this bill into law, instead of doing the good "fiscal conservative" move of vetoing bogus legislation that will only cost the state money.

Even if Pawlenty was against this bill, I still wouldn't vote for him. Hatch may have wasted money in litigation here, but Pawlenty has stripped the budgets of nearly all important state services. Instead, we have double-digit percentage increases in tuition at state colleges, and "user fees" that burden lower and middle class families. And taxes rose anyway, as local governments were forced to raise property taxes to fund their schools.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: MN Gov Race gamepolitics 2006-08-31 06:14 pm UTC (link)
	I'll be riffing on this situation a bit in tomorrow's "The Political Game" column on Joystiq... (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: MN Gov Race

bigman_k
2006-08-31 08:13 pm UTC (link)

Vote for the Libertarian party or some third party candidate then. The Republicans and Democrats are as useless as horseshit now. They have no idea how to solve the REAL PROBLEMS out there so they instead go after the NON existent problems like violence in video games to gain their votes.
Like Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park said "I hate the Republicans, but i also really fucking hate the Democrats."
Both parties have failed America and it's time for a change.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: MN Gov Race

dclam
2006-09-01 06:02 am UTC (link)

Actually, politics and government in this state are better than most. At least that's what I'm led to believe. We don't seem to have lots of big scandals and stuff going on. Sure, we have to put up with one or two bullshit laws every election cycle, but other than that things are OK.

And from 2000 through 2004, we actually had FOUR major political parties: the Democrats, Republicans, Independence (an MN-only party), and Green. I think Green has now lost major party status (they have some mayors and such), but Independence is still a major party. Remember Jesse Ventura? Yeah, we're that state.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

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

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs