US Judge Uses Brain Re: Video Games
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Hey Washington State? Suck it down, nub!</div> (from CNN money: <a href='http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/03/technology/games_firstamendment/index.htm' target='_blank'>http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/03/technology...dment/index.htm</a> )
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Constitution protects video games
Appeals court overturns controversial district court ruling, saying games qualify as free speech.
June 3, 2003: 4:48 PM EDT
By Chris Morris, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A federal appeals court gave the video game industry a big boost Tuesday, reversing a controversial lower court decision and ruling that games are protected by the First Amendment.
Last April, Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled that computer and video games had "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech" in a St. Louis County case that sought to limit children's access to mature video games.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying a "particularized message" is not required when it comes to the First Amendment.
"If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection," the court said in its ruling. "The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence."
St. Louis County had argued that stories are incidental in games, and players often skip straight to the action. The court acknowledged this, but noted the same could be said of today's action-packed movies, such as "The Matrix." Additionally, it said, home viewers of these films can easily skip to the action sequences using their DVD players or VCRs.
"The fact that modern technology has increased viewer control does not render movies unprotected by the First Amendment, and equivalent player control likewise should not automatically disqualify modern video games," the court said.
Experts say the ruling could have broad implications. Specifically, it could be a key factor in the upcoming appeal of Washington state's recently signed law banning the sale of certain violent video games to people under the age of 17.
"There's a lot in here that spells doom to that Washington law," said Damon Watson, an attorney who focuses on the video game and interactive entertainment industry for Bryan Cave LLP in Los Angeles. "The court's really putting lawmakers on notice that you can't say there's a problem without really backing it up."
Specifically, the ruling said the County "must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors" before restricting access to those games. St. Louis attempted to make that argument even bringing in a psychologist to testify during the hearing. The court rejected this theory, though, saying it was "simply unsupported in the record" and lambasted the "vague generality" of the psychologist's testimony.
The gaming industry cheered the court ruling.
"Better late than never," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade group). "The decision sends a powerful signal to government at all levels that efforts to regulate consumers' access to the creative and expressive content found in video games will not be tolerated."
Tuesday's ruling probably won't have a dramatic effect on video game stocks, even those publishers who specialize in action titles, such as Take Two Interactive Software, said analysts.
"Anytime one of these [lawsuits] comes up, it's something the short community has tried to use to scare people, but most fundamental investors aren't that worried about this issue," said Stewart Halpern, managing director and analyst for RBC Capital Markets. "Because most [investors] are sophisticated enough to know that it would be really hard to implement any sort of meaningful restrictions on these companies."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Constitution protects video games
Appeals court overturns controversial district court ruling, saying games qualify as free speech.
June 3, 2003: 4:48 PM EDT
By Chris Morris, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A federal appeals court gave the video game industry a big boost Tuesday, reversing a controversial lower court decision and ruling that games are protected by the First Amendment.
Last April, Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled that computer and video games had "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech" in a St. Louis County case that sought to limit children's access to mature video games.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying a "particularized message" is not required when it comes to the First Amendment.
"If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection," the court said in its ruling. "The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence."
St. Louis County had argued that stories are incidental in games, and players often skip straight to the action. The court acknowledged this, but noted the same could be said of today's action-packed movies, such as "The Matrix." Additionally, it said, home viewers of these films can easily skip to the action sequences using their DVD players or VCRs.
"The fact that modern technology has increased viewer control does not render movies unprotected by the First Amendment, and equivalent player control likewise should not automatically disqualify modern video games," the court said.
Experts say the ruling could have broad implications. Specifically, it could be a key factor in the upcoming appeal of Washington state's recently signed law banning the sale of certain violent video games to people under the age of 17.
"There's a lot in here that spells doom to that Washington law," said Damon Watson, an attorney who focuses on the video game and interactive entertainment industry for Bryan Cave LLP in Los Angeles. "The court's really putting lawmakers on notice that you can't say there's a problem without really backing it up."
Specifically, the ruling said the County "must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors" before restricting access to those games. St. Louis attempted to make that argument even bringing in a psychologist to testify during the hearing. The court rejected this theory, though, saying it was "simply unsupported in the record" and lambasted the "vague generality" of the psychologist's testimony.
The gaming industry cheered the court ruling.
"Better late than never," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade group). "The decision sends a powerful signal to government at all levels that efforts to regulate consumers' access to the creative and expressive content found in video games will not be tolerated."
Tuesday's ruling probably won't have a dramatic effect on video game stocks, even those publishers who specialize in action titles, such as Take Two Interactive Software, said analysts.
"Anytime one of these [lawsuits] comes up, it's something the short community has tried to use to scare people, but most fundamental investors aren't that worried about this issue," said Stewart Halpern, managing director and analyst for RBC Capital Markets. "Because most [investors] are sophisticated enough to know that it would be really hard to implement any sort of meaningful restrictions on these companies."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Doug Lowenstien is my hero! (and Joeseph Lieberman my enemy)
Frankly, I support enforcing age ratings on video games - if you're under 17, your parents should know if you're buying a game like GTA3. But saying that games don't qualify for First Amendment protection? That guy's on crack.
Frankly, I support enforcing age ratings on video games - if you're under 17, your parents should know if you're buying a game like GTA3. But saying that games don't qualify for First Amendment protection? That guy's on crack. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, 100%. Kids who are 8 years old should definitely NOT be playing GTA, or a lot of the other M rated games that are out there. That's what ESRB is for. If people are shooting up schools because of video games that's the parents' fault, not the game's.
I think kids over 14 can handle any violence a video game can put out, unless they're hyper-sensitive wussies.
<b>edit:</b> Note the above was a very general statement, so don't get all pissy at that.
1) Crack down on the ESRB. They really need to get up off their arses and actually lay down some solid ratings and rating guidelines. A PG-13 movie means something, but when a game such as Smash Bros. Melee (no blood) and an FPS with blood have the same rating, something's not right.
2) Enforce the ESRB ratings. Of course, this shouldn't be done until step 1 is complete. Just like other forms of 'free-speech protected' media, there should be some form of enforcing on the ratings. If my 13-year old brother can't watch an R movie by himself, why should he be allowed to purchase Vice City?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea its about time.
--Scythe--
1) Crack down on the ESRB. They really need to get up off their arses and actually lay down some solid ratings and rating guidelines. A PG-13 movie means something, but when a game such as Smash Bros. Melee (no blood) and an FPS with blood have the same rating, something's not right.
2) Enforce the ESRB ratings. Of course, this shouldn't be done until step 1 is complete. Just like other forms of 'free-speech protected' media, there should be some form of enforcing on the ratings. If my 13-year old brother can't watch an R movie by himself, why should he be allowed to purchase Vice City? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with that (#2) is that it makes certain parenting styles illegal. My parents approach to video games when I was younger was that I could buy violent games provided that I bought them with my own money. They would never have bought them for me, because they wanted to make it clear that they didn't endorse the content. But they gave me the freedom to get them for myself if I so desired. I think this parenting style was very very effective (I plan on using it with my kids when the time comes) and it would effectively be made illegal by attempts to limit access of minors to games. In order for a parent to give their child the freedom to choose for themselves, they would have to buy the games for them, which would defeat the whole idea of not endorsing the purchase.
It would be yet another attempt to enforce good parenting by the federal government, and it strips parents of their god given right to raise their kids how they please.
edit: one more thing. There is a cardinal difference between videogames and movies in that videogames must be used in a domestic environment. It is impossible for kids to hide the games they are playing from competent parents because they are played in the house, and thus it remains their responsibility to do the appropriate parenting. When a kid goes to a movie it is very likely that their parents cant/wont be around to police what they watch, so external governmental enforcement may be necessary.