Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down as unconstitutional a California statute purporting to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In a 30-page decision (PDF), in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the federal appeals court ruled that 'the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act's labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State's controversial opinion.'"
Tempting fate by going against one of the most violent; a Terminator.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
i veel ban violent games
http://www.game-walls.com/images/terminator%203/terminator_3_the_redemption_01_1024x768.jpg/
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The ninth also leads in the number of cases that don't wind up being reversed. Not that either statistic tells us anything meaningful about the likelihood of this particular ruling being reversed.
Legal staff: Governor, we lost in the appeal.
Governator: No way, josé... we'll be back!
NO SIG
So this doesn't apply to piracy, right? Then the kids won't be affected anyway.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
HAHAHAHA! Once again the Jack Thompson of violence in video game research, Dr. Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, has been thoroughly rejected by some clued-in judges
From the FPDF
Ever wonder where the "scientific" studies that stupid lawmakers use as a basis to establish justification for these crap laws come from? Well, now you know. Thankfully, the judges can tell the difference between good science and bullshit science. Too bad the fucking politicians can't.
This was a really good ruling. Leave censorship to the parents. There has been yet to prove a direct corollation between violent behvior and video games. Some studies have shown that operrant conditioning is happening where video game players may overcome the natural inhibition to kill. However, this theory fails to explain why most people that play violent video games do not go out and act like that in the real world. Behavioral science, while fascinating, is inexact at best. Legislating people's actions based on an inexact science is never a very good idea.
The ESRB warnings do not hold the weight of law, they are a private company. I can make a game and it doesn't HAVE to be rated.
Yeah, and video game laws lead in the number that wind up being reversed, too. I can only imagine how frustrated lawmakers must be that free speech applies to things they dislike, too.
(Accidentally posted as AC)
Exactly. We can have games in which we run around sawing people's heads off, disemboweling them, torturing them, gunning them down by the thousands - but at least we won't see their nipples!
I don't know, but I know that he won't be saying it in court!
Who cares? :)
caritj.org
Did anyone notice that the lawyers who successfully argued for "freedom of speech" here are the same ones who are fighting so hard to prevent the televising of the SONY v. Tenenbaum RIAA case?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The violent move industry is losing market share to the violent video game industry. The video game industry is not paying their hired scum politicians enough apparently.
I happy that the noose is being loosened from around the video game industries nest. At the same time, while we are paying less attention to the accessibility of violence to children, we need to pay more attention to enabling parents to control what their kids do and do not see.
Consoles, DVD players, computers, etc, need to be sold with the strictest parental controls already installed and enforced. After purchasing, the parent can then adjust the level of sex, violence, etc, that they want their children to see, and that they themselves want to see. As of now, the effort to implement effective and user friendly parental controls in media devices has been abysmal.
Almost every one of my relatives with kids and a computer have caught them accessing inappropriate content, but they have no idea how to block it, so they often come to me and I do my best to put restrictions in place and make the controls user friendly for them. They all have the computer in a family area, but they just don't have time to watch what their kids are doing 24/7, and the computer has become a critical tool for kids to do things like homework and yes, play games.
I think everyone should start paying less attention to banning things, and more attention ensuring that parents have the strictest control over what their children watch using their media devices.
There's a worse double standard here though that was struck down. Video games vs. Every other form of media. In the extreme case, what if they had tried to pass a similar law for books? Not even movies are subject to this though, there is no legal requirement for movies to be rated, or for theaters to bar children from movies. All rating and enforcement is done voluntarily by the theaters.
The double standard we have for sex and violence is a deep rooted societal issue that can't be undone with a few court rulings, but rulings like the one in the TFA can sure as hell beat back the tide of idiot legislators that try to pass this brain-dead anti-video game laws.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
( http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/1359/ )
You have been erased.
EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
She got beaten up by her fella, ella, ella...
Small though it is, the human brain can be quite effective when used properly.
If you're a comic fan, you'll probably have encountered another entertainment medium that has been singled out for special censorship. Not so much anymore, but during the 50's and 60's, comics were. Due, of course, to congressional grandstanding about the threat comics provided to our youth. That's a major part of why comics as an adult art form in America are so far behind those in Europe and Asia.
That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution.
That's what some judges do, depending on their judicial philosophy, but it's by no means clear that the purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret the Founding Father's intentions.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
"I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another..."
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
...Certainly, military combat training would need to get people over the psychological resistance to killing one another, if that training's going to be effective.
Not sure, but playing ridiculously violent video games may have start desensitizing.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
First, how is the violence in a video game "speech" or "the press", which are both mediums in which words are used so ideas, opinions and facts can be discussed?
Second, why is the production of violent video games protected but my right to donate money to a group that will publish ideas, opinions and facts I agree with not protected?
Third, perhaps California should have simply put a limit on how much money a person could spend on a video game containing violence and called it the "Video Game Finance Reform Law".
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Why is it terrible and awful for kids to see pictures of sex (which all balanced people grow up to do / want to do / fail at), but perfectly a-OK for kids to see pictures of violent killings (something that we really hope no-one grows up wanting to do overly much)?
Not much has changed since the 19th century I guess. "Come child, we're going to watch a public hanging! But cover up those ankles before we leave, harlot."