Federal Judge says games are not free speech
by David Dougher · in General Discussion · 05/01/2002 (4:42 am) · 27 replies
My brother in law sent this to me yesterday. I'll post the summary text and a couple of texts so you can follow up on it if you like. A chilling effect on the games industry if it is left in place.
>This Court 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... The Court has trouble seeing
>how an ordinary game with no First Amendment protection, can suddenly
>become expressive when technology is used to present it in "video" form.
>The Court finds that plaintiffs failed to meet this burden of showing that
>video games are a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.
>However, even if plaintiffs could establish that video games are a form of
>expression, their constitutional argument still fails.
I would love to know what four games he picked to review. Sounds like he grabbed a copy of Monopoly, Battleship, Pong and Space Invaders, if he failed to se the cinematic connection!
Here's the link to the full ruling.
http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/INTERACTIVE_DIGITAL_SOFTWARE_ASSOC_V_ST_LOUIS_COUNTY-SNL-36.PDF
And a couple of recent related rulings from the politech message board
"Appeals courts rule on violent arcade games (YES), anonymity (NO)"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01433.html
"Sell 'violent' video games to a teenager, go to jail"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03238.html
Also for some of the background on this ruling - which was made in St. Louis, you can check this out.
Officials surprised by ruling on violent video games
By Eric Stern
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/29/2002 08:59 PM
Two years ago, St. Louis County wanted to add teeth to the industry's
rating system by making it illegal to sell sexually explicit and
violent video games to minors without parental consent.
So, the county passed a law. As expected, it got sued by video game
makers, but last week, it unexpectedly won an initial ruling in
federal court.
Now the county is trying to figure out what to do next. Should it
enforce a law that one federal court has ruled unconstitutional?
Should it spend more time and money defending the law, maybe all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court, against an industry that had $6 billion
in sales last year? Or should it try to reach a settlement?
Despite a ruling in a different federal circuit, U.S. District Judge
Stephen Limbaugh last week said video games are not free speech and
ruled that the county has a compelling interest to protect the
physical and emotional health of children. He rejected the video game
industry's attempt to throw out the ordinance, and the case is heading
to trial.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/6F953FEE16C0CE4B86256BAB000CFBE7?OpenDocument&Headline=Officials%20surprised%20by%20ruling%20on%20violent%20video%20games
>This Court 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... The Court has trouble seeing
>how an ordinary game with no First Amendment protection, can suddenly
>become expressive when technology is used to present it in "video" form.
>The Court finds that plaintiffs failed to meet this burden of showing that
>video games are a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.
>However, even if plaintiffs could establish that video games are a form of
>expression, their constitutional argument still fails.
I would love to know what four games he picked to review. Sounds like he grabbed a copy of Monopoly, Battleship, Pong and Space Invaders, if he failed to se the cinematic connection!
Here's the link to the full ruling.
http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/INTERACTIVE_DIGITAL_SOFTWARE_ASSOC_V_ST_LOUIS_COUNTY-SNL-36.PDF
And a couple of recent related rulings from the politech message board
"Appeals courts rule on violent arcade games (YES), anonymity (NO)"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01433.html
"Sell 'violent' video games to a teenager, go to jail"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03238.html
Also for some of the background on this ruling - which was made in St. Louis, you can check this out.
Officials surprised by ruling on violent video games
By Eric Stern
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/29/2002 08:59 PM
Two years ago, St. Louis County wanted to add teeth to the industry's
rating system by making it illegal to sell sexually explicit and
violent video games to minors without parental consent.
So, the county passed a law. As expected, it got sued by video game
makers, but last week, it unexpectedly won an initial ruling in
federal court.
Now the county is trying to figure out what to do next. Should it
enforce a law that one federal court has ruled unconstitutional?
Should it spend more time and money defending the law, maybe all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court, against an industry that had $6 billion
in sales last year? Or should it try to reach a settlement?
Despite a ruling in a different federal circuit, U.S. District Judge
Stephen Limbaugh last week said video games are not free speech and
ruled that the county has a compelling interest to protect the
physical and emotional health of children. He rejected the video game
industry's attempt to throw out the ordinance, and the case is heading
to trial.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/6F953FEE16C0CE4B86256BAB000CFBE7?OpenDocument&Headline=Officials%20surprised%20by%20ruling%20on%20violent%20video%20games
About the author
Owner - Pariah Games, Adjunct Professor - Bristol Community College, Mentor - Game Design - Met School Newport, Mentor - Game Design - Met School Providence
#2
How hard is it to teach your children that sitting in a tree outside your school and shooting people is a bad thing???!!!
05/01/2002 (6:11 am)
I hate all the people who don't want to be parents, so they just blame their kids problems on everything and everyone else. How hard is it to teach your children that sitting in a tree outside your school and shooting people is a bad thing???!!!
#3
Lets hope though that the Software industry can smarten up when they do their appeal, because they really dropped the ball on the original court case, and get this blatent slap in the face removed.
Logan
05/01/2002 (8:02 am)
This is what you get when people who don't understand a single thing about the subject try to make laws and rules to govern a specific subject.Lets hope though that the Software industry can smarten up when they do their appeal, because they really dropped the ball on the original court case, and get this blatent slap in the face removed.
Logan
#4
05/01/2002 (8:24 am)
To help out, you guys should voice your concerns to your local representatives. I would, but I'm not an American. But you guys have the ability to let your goverment know how you feel about this. As Logan said, they're uninformed: so inform them.
#5
Sorry to rant like that, but it really pisses me off.
05/01/2002 (8:57 am)
Scott is right about contacting the reps. I know most people have become jaded towards the government and when it comes to voting it's usually pick the lesser jackass. Just think if Gore would have been elected. I'm ok with him, but his wife damn (former head honcho of the PMRC). If that third party ever gets going I'd be very happy. Why is more freedom, less government such a hard thing to understand? Everyone I know wants that. Ratings, warnings or whatever they want to put on and label things is fine with me. What I have a problem with is some fatass, robe wearing, stuck-up, out-of-touch, sh*thead telling me what I can or can't buy as an adult. I'm talking about video games here, but could also apply to many other things.Sorry to rant like that, but it really pisses me off.
#6
But I wonder how many of the people who are on the side of software ratings are on the NRA's take?
Maybe we need to orgainize some sort of Voter Regsitration and Information Drive.
I'd help by setting up a web page:)
05/01/2002 (9:03 am)
I agree with Scott. But I wonder how many of the people who are on the side of software ratings are on the NRA's take?
Maybe we need to orgainize some sort of Voter Regsitration and Information Drive.
I'd help by setting up a web page:)
#7
Right now they are voluntary, they seem to be applied to games by game makers peers. If you and your fellow developers suggest an "M" rating, what's wrong with someone actually enforcing that?
The ESRB is great. It's self policing, but it lacks any kind of enforcement. It actually HELPS parents make decisions about games to buy their children, so a concerned parent CAN do his/her job as a parent.
I don't see that in and of itself as a problem.
Other parts, yes, but enforcing ESRB in stores, hardly, that was one of the few shortcomings the congressional panel saw in it, nobody pays attention to it. They're not telling you not to make the games, they telling the store owners to pay attention to the labels on the games.
And yes, the puritans make me want to puke as well. Just want to put some of this into perspective.
05/01/2002 (9:33 am)
Actually, what is wrong with actually ENFORCING the ESRB ratings?Right now they are voluntary, they seem to be applied to games by game makers peers. If you and your fellow developers suggest an "M" rating, what's wrong with someone actually enforcing that?
The ESRB is great. It's self policing, but it lacks any kind of enforcement. It actually HELPS parents make decisions about games to buy their children, so a concerned parent CAN do his/her job as a parent.
I don't see that in and of itself as a problem.
Other parts, yes, but enforcing ESRB in stores, hardly, that was one of the few shortcomings the congressional panel saw in it, nobody pays attention to it. They're not telling you not to make the games, they telling the store owners to pay attention to the labels on the games.
And yes, the puritans make me want to puke as well. Just want to put some of this into perspective.
#8
As for the NRA, I would think they'd support selling of violent games to children... where else do you think they'd get new members? From kids who play Mario Hug Party? I think the problem extends to both ends. The media (all arenas) are forcing undesirable (from the parents viewpoint) things on the children, and the parents might not be the quickest in getting their kids to avoid it. The problem is from both sides.
The industry is driving a speeding car down a residential area, and the parents are letting their kids play in the street. The solution would be for more responsible marketing and sales for higher-rated games, and for the parents to pay attention. The latter is going to be near-impossible to do, but I guess the industry can keep bitching and hope it falls out of thin air. "Be better parents!" sure is easy to say... Sure, blame the parents but how can you expect them to keep the kids from being inundated with the flood of marketing? They can do better, but so can the industry. Anyone who blames one group entirely is clearly not worth trying to discuss the matter with.
05/01/2002 (9:39 am)
Yeah uh... why exactly would the NRA and game ratings be linked? I think it's just the pop-fear of right-wing conspiracies. I'm in the middle, but I usually lean more toward the left. I support the original law that people who ignore the rating system should be fined (jail time is a bit excessive though) but the judge's ruling is annoying. I think it's getting blown out of proportion since this is something that clearly wouldn't hold water against any higher court. Oh no! Some southern judge doesn't think much of video games!As for the NRA, I would think they'd support selling of violent games to children... where else do you think they'd get new members? From kids who play Mario Hug Party? I think the problem extends to both ends. The media (all arenas) are forcing undesirable (from the parents viewpoint) things on the children, and the parents might not be the quickest in getting their kids to avoid it. The problem is from both sides.
The industry is driving a speeding car down a residential area, and the parents are letting their kids play in the street. The solution would be for more responsible marketing and sales for higher-rated games, and for the parents to pay attention. The latter is going to be near-impossible to do, but I guess the industry can keep bitching and hope it falls out of thin air. "Be better parents!" sure is easy to say... Sure, blame the parents but how can you expect them to keep the kids from being inundated with the flood of marketing? They can do better, but so can the industry. Anyone who blames one group entirely is clearly not worth trying to discuss the matter with.
#9
I was carded at a target store when I bought a M rated game for PS2 about a year ago. I'm hardly ever carded at bars anymore btw.
I think only a few places enforce the rating system though. Yeah, enforcement is not consistant right now.
The blame everyone else thing is a little annoying. That's what we get for having too many lawyers and a government based on $ not principles anymore.
I don't know how the NRA stuff came in to this. I guess when "freedom" stuff comes up, guns become part of the conversation. I'm not a NRA member, but I know quite a few. Every one of them own guns (as do I) and have never commited any crimes. They're usually the most calm, helpful, and respectful type people you'll meet. It's similar to people I know that study martial arts. They have a self assurance about themselves knowing they can kick some ass if need be, but won't unless provoked.
The staight out censorship is one of the few things that get me really fired up. Rating systems, and parental control of some sort is usually a good idea.
I guess my problem is I'm sort of a beer drinking, heavy metal guitarist, ex-military, martial arts, computer geek (sterotypical scorpio I guess). You'll find a empty stout bottle, pick, 9mm, bo-staff, and a couple chicks phone numbers all near my computer desk (at home). Point being, maybe I'm not the one with the best main stream view point on the subject.
05/01/2002 (10:31 am)
Just a comment I thought was funny relating to ESRB (which I'm fine with).I was carded at a target store when I bought a M rated game for PS2 about a year ago. I'm hardly ever carded at bars anymore btw.
I think only a few places enforce the rating system though. Yeah, enforcement is not consistant right now.
The blame everyone else thing is a little annoying. That's what we get for having too many lawyers and a government based on $ not principles anymore.
I don't know how the NRA stuff came in to this. I guess when "freedom" stuff comes up, guns become part of the conversation. I'm not a NRA member, but I know quite a few. Every one of them own guns (as do I) and have never commited any crimes. They're usually the most calm, helpful, and respectful type people you'll meet. It's similar to people I know that study martial arts. They have a self assurance about themselves knowing they can kick some ass if need be, but won't unless provoked.
The staight out censorship is one of the few things that get me really fired up. Rating systems, and parental control of some sort is usually a good idea.
I guess my problem is I'm sort of a beer drinking, heavy metal guitarist, ex-military, martial arts, computer geek (sterotypical scorpio I guess). You'll find a empty stout bottle, pick, 9mm, bo-staff, and a couple chicks phone numbers all near my computer desk (at home). Point being, maybe I'm not the one with the best main stream view point on the subject.
#10
05/01/2002 (10:50 am)
Wal-Mart, Target and some of the Electronics Botiques are the ones who card for M games. That's about it...
#11
05/01/2002 (12:00 pm)
As they should though. Movie theatres and rental places need to card you for M and R movies that you want to see, why should there be a difference for games?
#12
The ESRB ratings started as purely voluntary, and well... that's not going to do much for the reason that the only people it will affect are those with touchy parents who notice an M rating on Quake 3, and throw it out. The people ratings are supposed to "protect" are the people who's parents aren't there to monitor their games as much as they might want to, so the rating is a summation of the amount of "immoral" stuff in the game.
I'm all for required id checking on M games.
05/01/2002 (12:23 pm)
There shouldn't be any reason they can't, but I guess that "infringes on our rights" according to many people out there.The ESRB ratings started as purely voluntary, and well... that's not going to do much for the reason that the only people it will affect are those with touchy parents who notice an M rating on Quake 3, and throw it out. The people ratings are supposed to "protect" are the people who's parents aren't there to monitor their games as much as they might want to, so the rating is a summation of the amount of "immoral" stuff in the game.
I'm all for required id checking on M games.
#13
I'm perfectly fine with the rating systems for games and other things right now.
I just thought it was funny to be carded for a game and not a bottle of Jack for example. I wasn't mad about it or anything. "Store policy" - no problem.
Just saying, other then the 3 places Matt mentioned above, enforcement for the game ratings are mostly non-existant (that I've seen).
05/01/2002 (12:34 pm)
I agree. I'm perfectly fine with the rating systems for games and other things right now.
I just thought it was funny to be carded for a game and not a bottle of Jack for example. I wasn't mad about it or anything. "Store policy" - no problem.
Just saying, other then the 3 places Matt mentioned above, enforcement for the game ratings are mostly non-existant (that I've seen).
#14
Also, it seems to me that when it comes to youth violence many people in goivernment point the finger at anything BUT guns.
I will agree that needing to "Card" people for M-rated games is a good idea(of course I think people should need to be "carded for 'labeled' CD, etc)
05/02/2002 (5:02 am)
I thnk Matt hit on part of my point! Also, it seems to me that when it comes to youth violence many people in goivernment point the finger at anything BUT guns.
I will agree that needing to "Card" people for M-rated games is a good idea(of course I think people should need to be "carded for 'labeled' CD, etc)
#15
And with the current system we can't card "labeled" CD's cuz its the cd company that put on the labels and if the stores started to card the "labeled" CD's the cd company wouldn't label any CDs.
05/03/2002 (6:46 am)
The only games that should be carded IMO should be pr0n games(I think they are almost everywhere, but I dont know cuz I dont buy that shite), becouse "M" are 18 right? Alot of gamers that buy these games are about 15 and they have usually seen gorier stuff in the movies so... If they should do something like this they should have a 15 age limit...And with the current system we can't card "labeled" CD's cuz its the cd company that put on the labels and if the stores started to card the "labeled" CD's the cd company wouldn't label any CDs.
#16
Logan
05/03/2002 (7:44 am)
Personally I like the idea of "carding" to preventing someone who is underage from buying a M game because it places the blame solely on the parents for buying the game and allowing their underage child to play such a game.Logan
#17
The whole rating system is ignoring the real problem, and it doesn't even do what it is supposed to do, anyway. Even carding people doesn't stop them from getting what they want. Have you ever been asked by a total stranger to buy a "labeled" CD or game(or cigarettes or beer) for them, since they are too young? I know I have, my older brother has, and many of the people I know have also. Being carded doesn't stop minors from drinking, or buying cigarettes, and it won't stop them from getting these games either. All it does is make them want it more, because it is "bad" so by buying it or using it they can prove that they can do whatever they want without consequences.
The reason the ESRB was made is because people simply do not want to be parents anymore. They don't want to monitor what their kids do, they don't want to teach them what's right and wrong, they don't want to make the effort. They want everyone else to keep their kids from buying or using stuff that is "harmful" to their minds. And herein lies the entire problem. Because parents no longer teach their children anything, they ARE affected by games, movies, and TV. If parents taught their kids how to think for themselves and decide what is right and wrong, it wouldn't matter what movies they watch, what games they play, or what they see on TV, because they would know the difference between fantasy and reality, and we wouldn't have kids shooting each other at school.
So I say hold the parents responsible the next time a teenager goes on a killing spree, send the parents to jail along with the kid, and see how long it takes for people to wake up and realize that the world is not going to do their parenting for them.
05/03/2002 (8:08 am)
I'm sorry, L. Foster, but you are wrong. Even enforcing the rating system won't put the blame on parents, they will shift it somewhere else. If they can't blame the store who sold the game, they'll blame the people who made the game. Look at what happened after the Columbine shooting. They tried to sue all of the major game publishers for making games that "influenced" their kids to do what they did. Thousands of other kids play the same games and watch the same movies, and they don't shoot their classmates. Gee, maybe that means the games(or movies) aren't the problem, the kids were.The whole rating system is ignoring the real problem, and it doesn't even do what it is supposed to do, anyway. Even carding people doesn't stop them from getting what they want. Have you ever been asked by a total stranger to buy a "labeled" CD or game(or cigarettes or beer) for them, since they are too young? I know I have, my older brother has, and many of the people I know have also. Being carded doesn't stop minors from drinking, or buying cigarettes, and it won't stop them from getting these games either. All it does is make them want it more, because it is "bad" so by buying it or using it they can prove that they can do whatever they want without consequences.
The reason the ESRB was made is because people simply do not want to be parents anymore. They don't want to monitor what their kids do, they don't want to teach them what's right and wrong, they don't want to make the effort. They want everyone else to keep their kids from buying or using stuff that is "harmful" to their minds. And herein lies the entire problem. Because parents no longer teach their children anything, they ARE affected by games, movies, and TV. If parents taught their kids how to think for themselves and decide what is right and wrong, it wouldn't matter what movies they watch, what games they play, or what they see on TV, because they would know the difference between fantasy and reality, and we wouldn't have kids shooting each other at school.
So I say hold the parents responsible the next time a teenager goes on a killing spree, send the parents to jail along with the kid, and see how long it takes for people to wake up and realize that the world is not going to do their parenting for them.
#18
I think that arguement is just too much like the movie industry says. "It's not our fault... so why restrict sales?" Why? Because it will remove the fault from the distributor and creators, and make the parents have to accept that they are slacking off if problems still arise.
Until it's tried, we can't say anything against it. Those lawsuits mentioned, and all previous are on games that either initially avoided ESRB and definately weren't required to be sold to legal adults. So until it's tried, we can't say nothing will be changed. Only people who might complain are the people who create the games that are violent for the sake of violence. Like junk like Soldier of Fortune and intelligence-insulting garbage like Postal. And who really cares if they make money?
In my opinion, Violence can be used respectfully. When a game has people begging for their lives, it's gone too far. We don't need to see the person scream and cry as their intestines fall out, and well... this might send a message. Make a moronically violent game, and sell less copies to minors.
05/03/2002 (9:07 am)
It hasn't been tried, so why do we think it wouldn't work?I think that arguement is just too much like the movie industry says. "It's not our fault... so why restrict sales?" Why? Because it will remove the fault from the distributor and creators, and make the parents have to accept that they are slacking off if problems still arise.
Until it's tried, we can't say anything against it. Those lawsuits mentioned, and all previous are on games that either initially avoided ESRB and definately weren't required to be sold to legal adults. So until it's tried, we can't say nothing will be changed. Only people who might complain are the people who create the games that are violent for the sake of violence. Like junk like Soldier of Fortune and intelligence-insulting garbage like Postal. And who really cares if they make money?
In my opinion, Violence can be used respectfully. When a game has people begging for their lives, it's gone too far. We don't need to see the person scream and cry as their intestines fall out, and well... this might send a message. Make a moronically violent game, and sell less copies to minors.
#19
Children are individuals too, and can be affected by many many things aside from their parents.
Sorry 'bout the rant, but I don't think it's entirely fair to always blame a child's criminal activities on the way that their parents raised them.
05/03/2002 (4:54 pm)
You can't always blame the parents for the children. Perhaps sometimes it is the parents fault, but not always. When you are a teenager, the friends you have influence you far more then your parents. If a child falls in with a 'bad crowd', then even good parents cannot ensure that their child is going to turn out well.Children are individuals too, and can be affected by many many things aside from their parents.
Sorry 'bout the rant, but I don't think it's entirely fair to always blame a child's criminal activities on the way that their parents raised them.
#20
I believe ozzie osborn said it best when he was getting sued for one of his songs causing a teen to commit suside "Their was something wrong with that child long before I recorded that song, if my kid sat in his room for 12 hours listening to the same song over and over, I would get off my ass and see what was going on in his life".
The ESRB is a tool for parents but not a replacement for parenting , personally I believe that the USA has a bad habit of producing sheltered kids that are ill prepared for real life and when something violent or otherwise "undesirable" happens in real life they haven’t a clue of how to react and possibly the only reference they have is a movie or other media where the hero went on a shooting spree instead of being thought how to handle situation with a clam adult mind set.
Of course some of the worst criminals come from very well adjusted family’s ....
05/04/2002 (6:07 pm)
The ESRB ratings serve one purpose, not all parents (a good chunk of them) have any idea how to use or install most games and therefore have no clue on the content ... the game developer does know what’s in their games and for them to rate their own game give a system that a parent can look at and decide weather or not they believe their child will be influenced by the game or not without the parent having to do research on the game it's self.I believe ozzie osborn said it best when he was getting sued for one of his songs causing a teen to commit suside "Their was something wrong with that child long before I recorded that song, if my kid sat in his room for 12 hours listening to the same song over and over, I would get off my ass and see what was going on in his life".
The ESRB is a tool for parents but not a replacement for parenting , personally I believe that the USA has a bad habit of producing sheltered kids that are ill prepared for real life and when something violent or otherwise "undesirable" happens in real life they haven’t a clue of how to react and possibly the only reference they have is a movie or other media where the hero went on a shooting spree instead of being thought how to handle situation with a clam adult mind set.
Of course some of the worst criminals come from very well adjusted family’s ....
Torque Owner Sabrecyd