Slashdot Mirror
Video Games Not Protected Form of Speech
E-Rock writes "Video Games are lumped with child porn as unprotected forms of speech. "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." Story with limited details at Nando."
St. Louis County's regulations on video games upheld
Copyright © 2002 AP Online
The Associated Press
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.
Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.
You can get the Judge's opinion here (96k pdf).
The constitution limits government, not people. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I have an infinite number of rights. The only rights the government has are those set forth in the Constitution.
In the past we have learned to treasure even that speech which is most offensive, including pornography, slander, Nazism, lynchings, and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Nazism is the only thing you listed that IS protected speech.
Slander, speech that presents a clear and present danger to the US, and speech that endangers the public safty are all illegal forms of speech.
these have been set forth by cheif Justice Marshall. the 1st cheif justice of the United States.
so giving away national secrets is not protected speech, elling fire in a crouded theater is not protected speech, and telling a lie about a person to people in a credible mannor (ie not satire)that damages their reputation (like saying a person rapes little boys when you know he does not) is not protected speech.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I just saw this:
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games?
I agree. I'm a parent, but it's not always that easy. Let me explain why parents can't always keep children from violent and explicit games.
About a year ago, I took my 5-year-old daughter to the local movie theater. In the lobby there was a row of games, including House of the Dead 2. The games in the theater lobby are situated so they face you as you stand in the lobby/concessions area. My daughter took notice of the game, ran over to it, grabbed the gun controller and stood there looking at the running demo of rotting zombies being shot and exploding gorily before her eyes. I rushed over to her and pulled her away, but obviously, I would have preferred she not have seen it.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm some religious goody-two-shoes, I will assure you I love these kinds of games. I'm totally addicted and Quake and Quake 2 will always have a home on my hard drive. I own quite a few violent games but I keep them locked up and my daughter never sees them. I maintain that control. I see it as my duty as a responsible parent.
These kinds of games, on clear public view in places where the public, including children, gather are a serious problem as it removed some measure of that control from me as a parent. I resent that. It pisses me off.
I later called the corporate offices of Regal Cinemas and complained about this and got back a completely defiant attitude about how they had the right to put those games there and how much money those games brought in, and how nobody else compains about it, etc. etc. I pointed out that if a film contained those kinds of gory and violent images, they would be required by law to ensure than a minor has a parent or guardian with them before viewing the movie. This point went right over the guy's head.
I even mentioned that perhaps they could situate the games so they aren't on clear view of the public, but I was told that it would make the games less appealing and make them less profitable. I then asked if they could turn off the demo mode and was given the same excuse.
IMO, some legal control over video games is not going to hurt anyone, exactly the same way legal control over objectionable material in films is not going to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary. As long as we're controlling where it can be displayed and who can play it, not distating what the games makers can or cannot do.
Let's not have some knee-jerk reaction to this. When corporate America can't see beyond its profits, then I have no problem with allowing the government to step in and teach them better.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Yikes. I feel like flailing my arms and shouting, "danger!" There is indeed a huge amount of evidence that violence in media -- music, games, movies, and books -- influences people. Hell, the entire advertising industry is built upon the idea that media can influence people.
I suspect you're saying what you're saying because either you personally are unaware of any evidence, or you're perfectly aware of it and reject it as hogwash. But psychologists going back to 1864 (I think, that number is off the top of my head) have documented something called the "werther's effect" which nowadays is called social proof. Wether was a writer (or the main character of a book, again, this is off the top of my head). Anyway, the main character of this moving, well-written book eventually killed himself. The book was immensely popular, and soon a wave of similar suicides began to sweep across multiple countries. By 1866, the book was banned by entire continents. Since that time, this has been studied to death -- they've studied accidents where everyone drove by without offering assistance, video games, rock music, laugh tracks, advertising, movies, you name it. It all ties in to social proof, which states: the more a person identifies with the environment, the more likely the person is to be influenced by it.
So your normal, healthy, well-adjusted slashdotter (cough) is NOT going to identify with pac man and start eating ghosts. Nor will he/she identify with doom and start shooting up everything in sight. But a young angry white boy who sees a lifelike portrayal of young angry white boys is going to be influenced. A middle-aged Asian dad who interacts with a game or movie or people who are also middle-aged, Asian, and fathers, will be influenced. There are a lot of reasons for this, and you can use Google to get some really great, really boring papers and essays about the research in this area. But the bottom line is realistic portrayals of anything will influence people of similar background.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &