Slashdot Mirror
Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law
kukyfrope writes "The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh struck down the Michigan law previously attempting to ban the sale of certain games to minors, ruling the law unconstitutional. Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players."
I have played GTA on and off since I was about 14, I don't go around on kill frenzys, steal cars, or work for the mob. This unnessecary legilation must stop as it is wasting valuable TAX dollars.
sudo mod me up
Here's to more "activist judges" like this guy.
Though it's a shame when a judge pointing out that that the government has just passed an illegal law is declared a "victory."
It's called BEING A PSYCHOPATH.
:(
Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
From TFA: Translation:Hats off to Judge Steeh.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
For those too lazy to actually click on the link...
Breaking: Michigan Violent Games Law Thrown Out
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan handed down a permanent injunction against the state's violent video games law.
Once again the video game industry is victorious in another one of its battles against state regulation of violent video games. Today the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), representing the computer and video games industry, announced that a federal district court in Michigan ruled that a bill--SB416, which was signed into law by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm--intended to restrict the sale of certain games to minors is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented.
Apparently the state of Michigan had claimed that video games' interactive nature made them less entitled to protection under the First Amendment, but The Hon.George Caram Steeh, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, clearly did not agree with this assessment.
"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," explained Judge Steeh. "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."
Last November, the very same judge handed down a temporary injunction against the Michigan law, but the latest ruling has now transformed that temporary block into a permanent one.
Although the federal government is still pushing for the CDC to investigate the effects of all electronic media on children, there is still no evidence of a direct link between violence in video games and real-life violence acted out by kids or teens. Regarding studies cited by the state in support of the bill, Judge Steeh said, "Dr. (Craig) Anderson's studies have not provided any evidence that the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior exists... The research not only fails to provide concrete evidence that there is a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior, it also fails to distinguish between video games and other forms of media."
While certain politicians and anti-game activists have also suggested that games are far worse for children than other media because they offer interactive, not passive experiences, the district court once again shot down this notion. "...it could just as easily be said that the interactive element in video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they would actually perform such acts in reality....Not only does the Act not materially advance the state's stated interest, but it appears to discriminate against a disfavored 'newcomer' in the world of entertainment media. Thus, 'singling out' the video game industry does not advance the state's alleged goal," concluded Judge Steeh.
Naturally, the ESA couldn't be happier with the court's ruling. The organization also said that it would seek reimbursement from Michigan for its legal fees, a move it also recently took with the state of Illinois.
"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," commented ESA President Douglas Lowenstein. "It is noteworthy that Judge Steeh specifically chastised the state for not doing what we urged them to do from the start, which is to find less restrictive ways to help ensure that parents make sound choices about the games their kids play. With this wasteful litigation behind us, we hope the state will now do just that and we remain ready to work cooperatively with them."
Of course there is a "Link", of course there is a "Relationship". Those are statistical terms. There is a link between having too much money and having an Apple product. Do rounded self-contained white computers cause people to have too much money? (or, to play this role more adequetly) Do they cause people who already have just enough money to enjoy such things to get even more money?
I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.
HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE
Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )
Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).
Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.
ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!
The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"
in conclusion:
I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
so its like all the other people are also punished for someone going insane...
...inevitability.
/. for a change...who'd have thought?
Seriously, games are a new entertainment medium, and as history has told us, all new mediums are resisted by the older generations and are gradually accepted overtime.
I'm glad to see that this is happening sooner rather than later. Good news on
An ambitious politician (we'll just call him... Mr. X) is looking to gain some bi-partisan appeal. Mr. X becomes aware of the Hot Coffee issue and it's run off, and decides to push forward a law banning the sale of M rated video games to minors. The bill isn't all that well writen, but that's not the point.
Mr. X has several others sign on to his planned bill, including folks from the othr side of the political spectrum. The bill gains huge support from both sides of Mr. X's legislative body.
The bill is passed, and signed by the Governer.
The game industry has the state sued for violation of the first amendment of the constitution, and the state supreme court rules in the game industry's favor. The state is forced to pay for the game industry's legal costs.
Mr. X can then blame the failure of his efforts to 'protect children from violent video games' (a duty ment for parents) on 'Activist Judges'.
In the end... the losses are:
-A unknown amount of time lost to pushing forward the game legislation that could have gone to more meaningful efforts.
-Taxpayer dollars lost trying to defend the bill in court.
The gains, however:
-Mr. X gains a reputation as a politician who wants to protect children, and has another example to use when playing the 'Activist Judge' card.
So does anyone think that there might be a correlation between the education and intelligence of the gamer with how a specific game might affect them?
/. are educated, intelligent individuals. Take a kid who has grown up in a bad family situation, non-educated, let him shoot people for 18 hours a day while his brain is still developing and I would almost wager to guess that he would have very little problem carrying out the acts in the game in real life should a similar situation develop - almost like instinct.
Also, some personalities are more apt to react impulsively to a situation versus thinking it through.
As you can see by my name I fly RC aircraft as a hobby. One of the tools I use to practice aerobatics with is a RC flight simulator. It mimics the physics and weather of a model airplane in flight and uses the same controller as I use to fly my "real" model airplanes. It doesn't remove the anxiety of trying a new manuever on the real model, but after I've done something on the simulator a few hundred times flying the real manuever feels just like I've done it a hundred times.
Could it possibly be the same with violence and first person shooter games? Do people who commit these crimes feel as though they have done it before due to the game and its just a walk in the park? Does it remove the emotional factor of taking someone's life? How are first person shooters and other games different from military training simulators? Would someone that has flown tons of flight simulators on the computer as games have any qualms about flipping a switch and dropping ordinance on a village?
A lot of the time we think that "no, its not possible" because its not possible for "us". Gaming is fun for us, we have no problem differentiating it from reality but most of the people who post here on
Dagnabbit, don't you see! If we let the young'ins get away with this, the next thing we know they'll have hover-majigs and whatchama-copter and we'll never get them off the damn lawn!
This is a very easy problem to study. If there are over 6 million players world wide who play World of Warcraft, someone could easily look at crime statistics and make a proper link.
1. Have hate crimes against Taurens risen since WoW was launched?
2. Has there been a rise in reported cases of grand theft ninja?
3. Are more Gnomes getting college degrees and taking jobs at NASA, or are they still building explosives and arcanite dragons?
You could go even deeper than this, and I think that you'll find that video games don't contribute to the problem.
Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law >> Judge pumps a cap in ass of Michigan Violent Games Law
I wasn't the father you saw, but I could easily have been. Here is the situation as I imagine it from the father's point of view. The parents take their son to the video game rental shop to rent him a game as a treat, perhaps because he brought home a good report card, or did well in sports at school. He has heard about this particular game, and picks it from the rack. The parents look over the cover and decide, in spite of the M rating, that it is appropriate for him. At the counter the father, hearing the question from the clerk, is concerned that his son might be embarrased to have porn. When the son indicates he is OK with it, the transaction is completed.
How do you not see the sames your kids are playing? As a parent it's your job to watch what your kid does in your house. No you cannot and do not want to be the all invasive 24-hour hovering parent, but you need to have basic awareness of what is going on. If a kid is able to hide a TV, videogame console, and games from you, you are doing a poor job.
Game systems should be in public areas of the house where you are likely to spend your time. That way you can keep an eye on what your kids are playing.
Here's an even better thought: Play the games your self before your kid does, and with your kid as well! What a concept! You don't like games you say? Suck it up, part of being a parent is doing things for the benefit of your child. You'll find, if you try them, that games are actually designed to be entertaining. Play the games and decide if you personally feel they are acceptable, don't rely on the opinions of others.
Thank God this shit isn't happening in Canada :)
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
It appears the state saw the video game law as an answer to obscenity in gaming. The S.Ct. allows government censorship of obscenity provided the government can show a rational relation between what they have done and what legitimate state purpose they are hoping to serve. This is considered the lowest threshhold for the Government to justify the Constitutionality of one of its acts. It is by this same rational basis that allows state, local, and Federal governments to seize land from one property owner and give to another if they believe it is better economically, thus turning a property right into an economic right.
What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.
This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.
Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.
Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.
What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Losses
Public perception of the promoter of the bad law likely improves.
Public perception of the judiciary likely falls.
Someone has to take significant risk to ensure the government behaves properly.
Gains
The bad law is gone.
It is possible the promoter of the bad law might look stupid.
People are reminded there are some people in positions of authority who understand and believe in the constitution/laws of the country.
We dont sell porn, beer, or smokes to kids, why do we want them to be able to buy games like GTA and Hitman?
Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have laws that codify compliance with the ESRB ratings. Also, retailers like Walmart and EB Games have voluntarily agreed to apply the ESRB ratings to purchases in their stores across Canada.
Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appropriate for my son, here and elsewhere). Some children have no problem viewing "graphic" content like GTA. I was one of those. However, some--a minority in my opinion--are not emotionally capable of seperating fantasy imagery from real life. It's not that they don't know the difference between GTA and the real world, it's that they think that they can apply what they see in GTA to the real world.
I've seen kids whose parents tried very hard to teach them that TV and video games aren't real continue to attempt to carry out what they saw there...and more than once it resulted in physical injury. Parents are supposed to filter the world for their kids. Getting hit with the full reality of how things are at age 6 is a bit much for most kids.
wonderful... finally something that deserves to be modded up and my points expired yesterday...
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Oh what?! Fuck. I'm totally buying video games for underage kids now.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of whether violent games should be sold to minors or not--yes, parents should be responsible for checking out what their kids play, but there are also many ways for children to get the games without parents' money or presence--but this brings up a point of comparison for me.
Movies, like games, are rated according to their content and whether or not it is appropriate for different age groups. Some movies kids can see on their own, some only with a parent present who has determined that the child is mature enough to handle the material, and some are inappropriate no matter what. Why is it different for a video game? Both are visual depictions of sensitive material.
I can't say whether or not the sale of M-rated games to minors should be banned, just as I'm not sure whether or not the viewing or rental of R-rated movies to childern under 17 should be prohibited. The fact is, though, that one medium is being legally regulated while the other is not. Does anybody else see something wrong with this? If it is illegal to prohibit kids from buying M-rated games, shouldn't it be illegal to bar them from attending R-rated movies? And if it is logical and desirable that these restrictions should be placed on movies, why are games any different?
All in all, my instinct is that prohibiting sales of M-rated games to children without parental consent is a good thing. Kids might think they're mature enough to handle sensitive material, but it is the parent who ought to have the maturity to know which games or movies the child should be watching. If after that a child is negatively affected by a violent video game, it's entirely the parent's fault--he or she should have been more vigilant about the child's experiences and information intake. Saying that a kid can't by a M-rated game on his or her own isn't prohibiting the kid from playing--it's just a way to involve parents in the decision.
What we do need is probably a better, more comprehensive, and more accurate ratings system for video games. I'm given to understand that movie ratings are carried out more rigorously than game ratings, and I've heard many complaints that video game ratings are either inaccurate or insufficient. If ratings were more closely policed, I don't think it would be a problem to regulate video game sales. If a game is rated mature and can only be bought with parents present, then on their head be it if their children are exposed to material they don't condone.
From the article:
Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players.
I am expecting that the next wave of laws that target games will be bundled with such "evidence" from "experts"...