Editorial boards around the state of Michigan continue to kick Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) while she's down.

As reported on GamePolitics, a federal judge ruled Michigan's controversial video game law unconstitutional late last month. Since that time, major newspapers around the state have been withering in their criticism of Granholm, the driving force behind the failed legislation.

The latest harsh assessment comes from the Detroit News in its editorial, "Michigan's anti-violent video game law shoots blanks."

Saying, "it's time for Gov. Jennifer Granholm and like-minded legislators to concentrate on more important issues," the News calls Michigan's video game law "a bad idea to begin with," and concludes:

"The video game industry, like the motion picture industry, rates its products to help parents determine what's suitable for children. That's the appropriate protection, not misguided government intervention."

Detroit's leading newspaper has come down hard on Gov. Jennifer Granholm's ill-fated attempt to legislate video game sales. Michigan's law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge last week.

An editorial in the Detroit Free Press urges Granholm to curtail efforts on regulating games.

"The law was a bad idea from the start," the paper said, "a feel-good solution for a complicated social problem that was obviously unconstitutional. Appealing this ruling or reintroducing similar legislation is a waste of time and money... As leaders, politicians should focus their efforts on public education and urging the industry to regulate itself - not on promulgating unclear, unenforceable and unconstitutional bans on what games people play."

The battle is over in Michigan.

The video game industry registered another big court victory today as a federal judge ruled Michigan's video game law unconstitutional and reaffirmed that "video games are a form of creative expression that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. They contain original artwork, graphics, music, storylines, and characters similar to movies and television shows, both of which are considered protected free speech."

As reported by GamePolitics last November, Judge George Caram Steeh had previously issued a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. At a March 22nd hearing, final arguments were presented. Judge Steeh's decision was provided to lawyers for both sides on Friday. Industry reaction was swift.

"Judge Steeh's ruling represents a sweeping rejection of the state's claims regarding the harmful effects of violent video games and we will move immediately for reimbursement of the substantial legal fees incurred in this court fight which the state could have, and should have, never triggered," said ESA president Douglas Lowenstein.

Judge Steeh likewise dismissed Michigan's claim that the interactive nature of video games somehow limited their First Amendment protections.

"The interactive, or functional aspect, in video games can be said to enhance the expressive elements even more than other media by drawing the player closer to the characters and becoming more involved in the plot of the game than by simply watching a movie or television show," Judge Steeh wrote. "It would be impossible to separate the functional aspects of a video game from the expressive, inasmuch as they are so closely intertwined and dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience."

Nor was the jurist kind to research submitted to support the law.
( Read more... )

Lacking news of any developments in yesterday's crucial Federal District Court hearing on Michigan's video game law, GamePolitics reached out to the office of Judge George Caram Steeh.

What did we learn? No ruling yet in the case. Judge Steeh has taken the matter under advisement. The representative we spoke with could not predict when we might get a ruling.

So now, we wait...

Keep one eye on your favorite game today, and one eye on Michigan.

This morning, lawyers for the video game industry will square off against the Michigan Attorney General in a federal court room in Detroit. At issue is the industry's lawsuit to stop Michigan's video game legislation which was signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm (seen signing the bill at left) on September 12th.

The law, scheduled to go into effect on January 1st, was blocked by a preliminary injunction issued November 19th by Federal District Judge George Caram Steeh. GP readers can view the injunction ruling.

It's impossible to know whether the judge will decide the case today. He could issue his ruling from the bench or take the matter under advisement. Both sides will be listening carefully to Judge Steeh's comments, looking for an indication as to which way he is leaning on the matter.

Stay tuned to GamePolitics for updates.

Michigan has been a hotbed of politically-oriented gaming news of late. In recent days, GP has reported on a 25 to Life boycott proposed by Democrats in the statehouse as well as Gov. Jennifer Granholm's support of the boycott resolution.

GP has now heard from Hal Halpin, president of the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA), the trade organization which represents video game retailers. In a sharply-worded response, Halpin stops just short of calling Gov. Granholm's support of the 25 to Life boycott a publicity stunt. Here is Halpin's statement:

"We first learned about Governor Granholm's supposed letter campaign to Michigan retailers this morning via our lobbyists, who themselves only caught wind of it through a local press report. To the best of our knowledge, none of the IEMA member companies (who collectively account for about 75% of the market) have received her letter."

"It's also worthy of mention that in a recent interview regarding the game's controversy, the president of the publishing company, Eidos' Bill Gardner, stated that he believes that 25 to Life would not be selling at all if it were not for the negative publicity given it by politicians. Given that public notification, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind further publicizing a non-issue other than headline grabbing - an event which has become far too common related to the violent video games debate, and is ultimately counter-productive."

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has joined the call for a boycott of Eidos' controversial cops-and-robbers shooter 25 to Life.

In a press release on her website, Granholm cites a letter sent to video game retailers in which she writes, "Taking this game off your shelves is not only the best way to ensure that it does not end up in the hands of children, it also sends a message of support to our law enforcement community that we will not support those who would profit from the production and sale of such games, no matter what the intended audience."

Last week, GamePolitics reported that Michigan's Democratic legislators introduced a resolution denouncing 25 to Life and likewise calling for a boycott. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Kathy Angerer, has been referred to a the Government Operations Committee of the Michigan House.

Michigan, of course, was one of three states to sign video game sale legislation into law last year. Gov. Granholm was the driving force behind the measure, which has been contested by the game industry on First Amendment grounds and is under temporary injunction. A critical federal district court hearing on the constitutionality of the game law is scheduled for March 22nd.

The nationwide law enforcement backlash against Eidos' 25 to Life is blossoming into a serious public relations black eye for the video game industry.

GP tracks national news, of course, and at least once a day for the past several weeks there has been a local television or newspaper report concerning the understandable negative reaction police officers have to the game.

Politicians, of course, are taking notice as well. In Michigan, where a constitutional battle still rages over the video game bill signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm last fall, state Democrats have backed a boycott of 25 to Life.

As reported by The Observer, Rep. Kathy Angerer (left) introduced a resolution on the controversy yesterday. HR0208, co-sponsored by numerous Democratic legislators, is designed to "express support for a boycott of '25 to Life,' a video game that invites players to kill law enforcement personnel, and to urge parents, retailers, caregivers, and others to join this boycott and to keep this game away from children."

"Clearly this is a bad thing," said Rep. Marie Donigan a press conference held earlier this week at the Royal Oak Police Station. "(Police) must not be targets in blood-thirsty video games."

"The main significance of (this protest) is awareness," Police Chief Ted Quisenberry said. "We can't have these conferences every week when the latest versions come out."

Meanwhile, an editorial in today's Oakland Press commends the lawmakers for resisting calls to ban 25 to Life as urged by the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund. The Press editorial board says, in part, "A lot of people... are calling for a boycott. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), however, has undertaken a petition drive to have it banned by law. And that's more dangerous territory than the game itself... One of our First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution is that of adults to see and read what they want, without censorship..."

In related news, the NLEOMF petition to ban 25 to Life has garnered over 220,000 signatures.

Will Michigan's video game law join the Safe Games Illinois Act on the trash heap of failed video game legislation? We may know soon.

GamePolitics readers probably recall that Michigan's law was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh on November 9th. The issuance of the preliminary injunction by Judge Steeh indicated Michigan's law was unlikely to survive the industry's constitutional challenge.

In his November 9th injunction order, the judge wrote, "It is unlikely that the State can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing a perceived 'harm'... the Act will likely have a chilling effect on adults' expression, as well as expression that is fully protected as to minors."

Sensing victory, video game industry attorneys went for a knockout punch, filing a motion for summary judgment on December 23rd. The motion essentially asks Judge Steeh to throw the case out for lack of merit. Such an action by the judge would permanently block Michigan's law from taking effect. A two-page order issued by Judge Steeh on Friday gives Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (seen at left) and other defendants until January 23rd - one week from today - to respond to the industry's summary judgment request.

As always, stay tuned to GamePolitics for further developments.

The next twelve days may well decide the fate of video game laws passed earlier this year in Illinois, Michigan and California.

In Illinois, a knowledgeable source has told GamePolitics that, based on statements from the bench made by Federal Judge Matthew Kennelly, it is expected the judge will find the state's ban on sale or rental of violent games to minors unconstitutional.

Kennelly will also rule on labeling and signage issues regarding violent games. GP's source believes the labeling requirement will also fail on a constitutional basis, since it relies on the same "scientific" evidence as the sales restrictions portion of the bill. As reported previously on GamePolitics, Judge Kennelly's comments during the November 16th hearing indicated that he did not find the state's evidence persuasive.

In Michigan, the state has until December 9th to appeal a preliminary injunction issued by Federal Judge George Caram Steeh .

Also on December 9th, the video game industry will be in Federal District Court in San Jose to request a preliminary injunction blocking California's video game law from taking effect on January 1st.

There's nothing like a 29-page legal brief to get your morning off to a snappy start.

But if you care about the kind of issues we cover here on GamePolitics, this is one you'll want to check out.

The Michigan video game legislation and subsequent industry challenge is a topic we have covered extensively here on GP; however, this is our first look at the actual filing.

Credit is due to media law expert Cathy Kirkman and her great Silicon Valley Media Law blog for tracking down the complaint filed by the ESA against Michigan's recently enacted video game law.

Ms. Kirkman also points out the website of the Media Coalition, a trade association concerned with First Amendment advocacy. Member organizations include the ESA as well as its co-plaintiff in the Michigan case, the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA). The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) is also a Media Coalition member, along with the RIAA, MPAA, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (gotta love that) and others.

According to a press release issued by Michigan's Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, retailers in the Wolverine State failed miserably in a recent undercover study conducted by deputy sheriffs in six Michigan counties.

"We should all be disturbed by the availability of these games," said the Governor. "It wasn't just a problem in one store or one county, and it wasn't just a problem in large cities or rural communities. Children across the state have access to games that depict graphic violence and sexual exploitation. We must act now."

Although GamePolitics is generally skeptical of non-scientific studies conducted by agencies with direct links to politicians and their agendas, Michigan's raw data appears damning at first glance. The study was conducted during the month of April; Governor Granholm's office released the results on Wednesday, May 4th. GamePolitics has obtained an Excel spreadsheet containing the raw data from the Michigan investigation.

Although GamePolitics was unable to obtain specifics regarding the methodology of the investigation, the data indicates that children as young as nine and as old as sixteen were employed in attempt to puchase M-rated games. Some videos and DVD's were also apparently purchased, although the reason for their inclusion in the data is unclear. In all, the underage buyers were successful in 26 of 58 attempts. Although the sample data is low, some retailers, such as Game Stop, K-Mart, Meijer, and Wal-Mart emerge from the study smelling like a rose. Others, such as Target, EB Games, Best Buy, Pamida, and Movie Gallery, have a lot of explaining to do.

Here is how each store targeted in the operation performed. The percentage listed reflects how often the retailer sold to minors:

Worst:

Movie Gallery 100% (3 of 3)
Pamida 100% (2 of 2)
Game Frenzy 100% (1 of 1)
Hollywood Video 100% (1 of 1)
Sam Goody 100% (1 of 1)
FYE 100% (1 of 1)
Game Crazy 100% (1 of 1),
Circuit City 100% (1 of 1)
Sun Coast Video 100% (1 of 1)
CompUSA 100% (1 of 1)
Target 75% (3 of 4)
EB Games 50% (3 of 6)
Best Buy 50% (1 of 2)

Best:

K-Mart: 0% (0 of 4)
Toys'R'Us 0% (0 of 2)
Wal-Mart 0% (0 of 2)
Babbages: 0% (0 of 1)
Media Zone: 0% (0 of 1)
Play It Again 0% (0 of 1)
Blockbuster 0% (0 of 1)
Main Video 0% (0 of 1)
Mamoth Video 0% (0 of 1)
Tacoma Video 0% (0 of 1)
Game Stop 12% (1 of 8)
Meijer 25% (1 of 4)

A county-by-county breakdown is available in our forum.