Judge Blocks Louisiana Violent Games Law

kukyfrope writes "A Baton Rouge federal judge has today issued a temporary injunction against Louisiana's violent games law that Governor Kathleen Blanco just signed last week. According to local newspaper The Advocate, U.S. District Judge James Brady issued the injunction just hours after the Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association filed the lawsuit in Louisiana. "How would a person assess whether a particular video game appeals to a minor's 'morbid interest in violence'? And what constitutes a 'patently offensive' depiction of violence? Persons of ordinary intelligence are forced to guess at the meaning and scope of the act," said New Orleans attorney James A. Brown"

Comments

Finally

[ToasterofDOOM]

At least someone has their head screwed on tight enough to realize that this is bullshit legislation. I'm glad we're not te only ones here at /.

Re:Finally

[TubeSteak]

Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew the legislation was BS.

Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'?

The court isn't being asked to rule on the legality of the intent behind the Violent Games Law, merely its vague wording. It isn't like the Lousianna Legislature can't fix the defects in the law & pass it again.

Until a Court declares that the intent of the law is Unconstitutional, I don't think this is over.

Re:Finally

[Haeleth]

Now what if they had gone ahead and instituted some arbitrary standards of 'patently offensive' & 'morbid interest in violence'? The court isn't being asked to rule on the legality of the intent behind the Violent Games Law, merely its vague wording. It isn't like the Lousianna Legislature can't fix the defects in the law & pass it again.

Which is just fine. There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone. The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.

The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that. The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

It's only vague or over-broad laws, like the DMCA, that have chilling effects.

Re:Finally

[maxpublic]

The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, for then we'd be truly fucked. Democracy is called "a tyranny of the majority" for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that, and opted for a constitutional republic instead.

But the stated intent itself is not bad.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. In my equally unimportant opinion, as a parent I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play. And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game. I think it's fairly obvious that the folks who want to barge into my home and tell me how I should parent my kids are using this as a first step towards putting *me* in jail if I go and buy the 'violent' video game for my child myself.

Really, these idiots need to tend to their own affairs, and stay the hell out of mine. We're talking about computer games, not crack.

Max

Re:Finally

[plague3106]

There's nothing wrong with legally enforced ratings. They don't hurt anyone.

Sure it does. R rated movies have a smaller target audience, and thus become less profitable to make. Therefore, the numbere of R rated movies decreases. It still ends up being censorship. Personally it hurts me because G and PG movies I automatically rule out as the same tripe over and over again. As a rule, I don't find them entertaining (sorry, I guess I don't find what entertains 8 years olds entertaining to me). Same things goes for M and AO rated games.

The beer industry does not seem to be suffering from the fact that it's illegal to supply liquor to minors; the porn industry does not seem to have been stifled by the fact that Walmart does not stock hardcore videos.

These industries also have stores which exist soley for that market. There's plenty of adult stores and liquor stores around. Hell, I can buy beer at convience stores here in Vermont. The same is NOT true for M rated games. Walmart may sell beer, but it won't sell an M or AO rated game. And what this law is attempting to do is make it so that no other stores will carry M or AO rated gamse either, because they FEAR they MIGHT be prosecuted under this law. In the end, its still censorship, just like the FCC indecency fines are still censorship. The government can't tell FreeFM what to bleep on O&A, but they CAN fine FreeFM is someone complains. The end result is that FreeFM bleeps things because of a POSSIBLE government imposed fine. Its still censorship. In some respects its actually worse, because the FCC can't give any guidelines on what can or cannot be said, so FreeFM is many times overzealous, and censors MORE than if there were hard and fast censorship rules.

The problem with this law was nothing to do with its stated intent; it was that it was vaguely worded. The wording was designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, where game manufacturers were not able to be sure whether their games would be treated as "violent" or not, and where game retailers were not able to be sure whether they were allowed to sell certain games to minors. That would have stifled people's free expression by encouraging self-censorship. That would have been bad.

The intent of the law is to censor games, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it. The law must be vague, because it would be struct down as an attempt at censorship. See above where I talk about why the FCC won't tell radio stations what is acceptable and what isn't.

But the stated intent itself is not bad. It's not even censorship. A well-written law of this sort, with very precise and rigid definitions and easily-understood effects, would not be a problem. If they want to institute some "arbitrary" standards, then that's fine. If the people change their standards, the law can be changed to reflect that.

Bull. It is censorship, no matter how you try to justify it. And children don't stop having rights just because they are young.

The people will get what they want, which is what "democracy" means.

Its too bad we are NOT a democracy, and nor would I want this country to become one. Democracy = mob rule. There are plenty of things people have the right to do even though the majority doesn't agree that it should be a right.

For example, free speech. Popular speech doesn't need free speech protection at all. Its the unpopular speech (such as video games) that the first amendment is meant to protect.

Re:Finally

[bunions]

I'm the only person on this Earth who gets to decide what sort of video games my kids can and cannot play.

Right. And ratings are designed to help you with this, so your kid can't sneak off and buy Blood Drinking Hell Guys 4 without your knowledge and play it at his friends house. What's that? You want him to play Rabbit Slaughter 5000? Then go buy him a copy. Did I really need to explain this?

And I don't see it as a very big step between legislating who can and cannot *buy* a video game to who can and cannot *play* a video game.

Oh please. It's a huge difference, enough with the slippery slopes.

Re:Finally

[miskatonic alumnus]

And I refer you to my reply. Murder, rape, arson, burglary are crimes against the public and have real victims who suffer real losses. It is in the interest of society to capture, reprimand, jail these individuals so that they do not claim more victims. Someone selling a videogame injures no one.

Taking your logic to the extreme, I don't want my children to spray grafitti on bridges or buildings. Is the answer to petition Congress to forbid Wal-Mart from selling paint to minors? Where do you stop with this absurdity? I'll answer that for you: You stop legislating at the point where people do not lose life, limb, or property. That is, when there are no victims.

Now Honestly...

[Greyfox]

Who didn't see that coming? And why is cash-strapped Louisiana wasting its tax dollars passing and then having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend blatantly unconstitutional laws that have no chance of holding up in court in the first place? It doesn't seem to be financially responsible to the state's taxpayers, if you ask me.

Re:Now Honestly...

[Cheapy]

Elections are coming up.

A bit of good news, at least

[Runefox]

At least we know the US judicial system isn't completely buggered yet. I can't imagine what the world would be like if any more of those fuzzy terms were introduced into law; It would make everything subjective, people could eventually be arrested for anything at all. Why this and other such stuff even got and continues to get passed is beyond me. I guess the courts and patent offices have a lineup at their door, so they have to rush things along. It's the only thing that makes sense, beyond bribery and blackmail, which I'm sure had a hand in it as well.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[EGSonikku]

How is the 14th ammendment 'unjust' exactly? Last I checked your state ratified it.

You can't have a state taking away constitutional rights and then expect the feds just to look the other way.

Someone needs to re-read the:

Constitution
Bill of Rights
The Hungry Catapillar

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[Planesdragon]

people could eventually be arrested for anything at all

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

When you get right down to it, the law isn't what Congress says, or the President, or the police, or even the judge. The law is what the people, through a jury, say.

Re:A bit of good news, at least

[bar-agent]

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty. Because only with reasoned, concientious jurors does our system of laws really work.

And that's why we can't serve on jury duty. Lawyers don't want reasoned, conscientious jurors. They want gullible, biased jurors.

Re:I am for the freedom to play any game you want.

[Anonymous Coward]

No state has the right to bypass Federal constitutional freedoms.

I would be bullshit if as a US citizen my -federal- rights were limited in any state I visited.

Given that, sadly, it seems lately nothing stops the federal government from stepping on my rights.

  At least its even.

In any case, the judgement is right on.

Did you hear?

[fernandoh26]

Quote:

The authority of the Federal government to declare state statutes that affect only that state unconstitutional is something I am against.

In unrelated news, the state of Alaska has today signed the following bills into state law:

- All state elementary, middle school, high school, colleges and universities are now considered faith-based organizations, and can only be attended by white male catholics
- Black people can no longer vote, and only count as 3/5 of a person in the state census
- Slavery is now legal
- All media or speech of any type is subject to arbitrary censorship from by the state government

Looks like that wacky Ted Stevens is at it again!

It's not that hard to be a parent today

[MikeRT]

Aside from the legal meddling of state social workers, there are fewer problems that parents face today than they did before. Parents actually have the ability to extend their standards to places where they would normally have no control, like the television when they're working late. The V-Chip allows a parent who actually has to work late, rather than just to buy that new beamer, to control the content that is accessible. All media today is rated down to minute details to allow the rushed parent a fine-grained survey of all possibly objectionable content within ten seconds, literally. Anyone out of high school with a literacy rate above the fifth grade should be able to grok a ESRB rating in ten seconds or less.

We actually have lawsuits brought by parents who seriously think that others should do more of their job for them!. This is a generation of parents that is so self-indulgent that it wants to legislate its personal preferences onto content providers because it cannot even be bothered to buy the content it enjoys!

The irony of it is that most the people really pushing these laws are left of center! The very people who whine, piss and moan about "puritans" on the right! Last I checked, a puritan is someone who forces their views on someone else at gun point when they're not harming anyone or anyone's property. It's nice to see that the political social conservatives have competition, albeit in a dark sort of way.

I plan to be a full-time father, including sacrificing my material possessions for my kids. Someone once commented to the effect that it's not wise to try to gain the whole world at the expense of your spiritual life. I believe he also commented before some self-righteous liberals and conservatives of his day killed him for defying them, that there would come a day when parents would see their children so throughly abandon the right path that they would curse themselves for being fertile.

Re:It's not that hard to be a parent today

[Aceticon]

The irony of it is that most the people really pushing these laws are left of center! The very people who whine, piss and moan about "puritans" on the right! Last I checked, a puritan is someone who forces their views on someone else at gun point when they're not harming anyone or anyone's property. It's nice to see that the political social conservatives have competition, albeit in a dark sort of way.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Left-Right is not the only axis in political thinking, there is actually another axis, Libertarian-Conservative.

These axis are orthogonal, meaning that being left-wing or right-wing is independent of one being conservative or libertarian.

Contrary to popular believe, being libertarian does not imply being pro-business (a characteristic mostly associated with being right-wing), nor does being left-wing imply not being conservative.

Any true libertarian (both right-wing and left-wing) would be against this kind of legislation - libertarianism = pro-freedom: the guys that passed this law are conservatives, plain and simple.

Volunteers?

[ElleyKitten]

And this is why you MUST serve on jury duty.

Do they take volunteers? Because in 7 years as a registered voter I've never been called. Google searching gives all sorts of suggestions for how to get out of jury duty, but nothing for how to get it.

Quite the opposite.

[Elemenope]

People only pass laws to prevent behaviors that they can imagine themselves desiring to do. There is, of course, a far far smaller class of laws that exist not to indulge the repressive instinct by proxy, but rather to maintain the social order (do not kill, rape, maim, or steal), but in that category there truly is nothing new under the sun. For everything else, there is the moral crusader.