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
#22
I think the media is a good representation of where we are going in this society. Compare modern television with programs aired about 20 years ago. It's quite disturbing. I have two kids and trying to monitor their intake of crap is damn near an all day job. About 95% of kids shows on tv promote violence in one form or another. Ever sit through a Disney film and really watch it? Even their most highly praised kids films and kids shows? It's saturated with the crap. Even the classics.
Then you have the challenge of input from kids their age, commercials on tv, taking them to stores where violent toys are marketed in brightly colored packages, etc, etc. The barrage is never ending for parents. And they're expected to keep their kids from reenacting or glorifying it when it's literally everywhere you look. Or you have to give it to them in 'healthy doses'. "Here's your toygun, Tommy, now remember it's only make believe. But you and your friends can run up and down the street and pretend to kill each other." Are you supposed to tell them not to point it anyone? Is a 4-6 year old supposed to get weapons safety training with a plastic gun or even a squirt gun? And all this is supposed to be healthy anyway? If you show a dog repeatedly how to attack someone and then it mauls the little girl next door ... what were you expecting?
So do you tell your kids it's okay to be violent or not? It's okay to sock Billy in the nose when he pushes you down? Or it's okay to take back a toy that was taken from you, even if you have to use force? What about the grey areas of decision? Humans are generally agressive by nature. Fight or flight syndrome dwells in everyone. So in a sense you're fighting with nature. If you keep your kid from violence and raise them to respect others, then they're classified as 'sheltered'. And then a 'non-sheltered' kid beats them into a bloody pulp infront of all their peers because he didn't like them. What then? How should the kid deal with it? How do you explain to your child what just happened to them and why? I'd like to see what adult would handle that with a 'calm mind set' while they're laying there getting the pissed kicked out them by some co-worker. But we expect our kids to handle it and for parents to prepare them for it. How do you prepare a child for being destroyed emotionally or even physically?
Nothing prepares you for parenthood. All you can do is teach your kids to do what you think is right. To fight or not fight, to go tell a teacher or deal with it themselves, guns are good or bad, etc. Then all you can do is monitor them, keep them in check and worry. They go over to a new friend's house after school, the kid's parents have a locked-up gun, but the kid knows how to get into it, they play with the gun and bam your kid is dead. It's happened before numerous times and that's one of the many possibilities that lie outside your door everyday. Having served in two foreign conflicts, I'd have to say being a soldier is alot less scary than being a parent. I'd take another round of Mogadishu over the worrying about your own child.
I guess my point is, violence begets violence and we do glorify it in every form of media we currently possess. Do we push on with it the way it is and let our 'freedoms' make it worse or try to change it? I personally don't know. But if a banned or withheld game does actually help deter someone from violence or help save a life, then I think it's worth the sacrifice. Afterall, it's just a game.
05/10/2002 (11:14 pm)
I think all the government and media have been able to uncover is nothing more than a symptom ... not a cause. They've blamed the parents, the media, peers, the kids, etc. Yet, no one knows why this happens and can point to a cause. Without pointing to the fact we are one of the most violent societies on the planet. Sure we don't have military/police engaged in conflict on the streets of all towns, but we do promote an unhealthy amount of violence. We drive this ideal into kids 24/7.I think the media is a good representation of where we are going in this society. Compare modern television with programs aired about 20 years ago. It's quite disturbing. I have two kids and trying to monitor their intake of crap is damn near an all day job. About 95% of kids shows on tv promote violence in one form or another. Ever sit through a Disney film and really watch it? Even their most highly praised kids films and kids shows? It's saturated with the crap. Even the classics.
Then you have the challenge of input from kids their age, commercials on tv, taking them to stores where violent toys are marketed in brightly colored packages, etc, etc. The barrage is never ending for parents. And they're expected to keep their kids from reenacting or glorifying it when it's literally everywhere you look. Or you have to give it to them in 'healthy doses'. "Here's your toygun, Tommy, now remember it's only make believe. But you and your friends can run up and down the street and pretend to kill each other." Are you supposed to tell them not to point it anyone? Is a 4-6 year old supposed to get weapons safety training with a plastic gun or even a squirt gun? And all this is supposed to be healthy anyway? If you show a dog repeatedly how to attack someone and then it mauls the little girl next door ... what were you expecting?
So do you tell your kids it's okay to be violent or not? It's okay to sock Billy in the nose when he pushes you down? Or it's okay to take back a toy that was taken from you, even if you have to use force? What about the grey areas of decision? Humans are generally agressive by nature. Fight or flight syndrome dwells in everyone. So in a sense you're fighting with nature. If you keep your kid from violence and raise them to respect others, then they're classified as 'sheltered'. And then a 'non-sheltered' kid beats them into a bloody pulp infront of all their peers because he didn't like them. What then? How should the kid deal with it? How do you explain to your child what just happened to them and why? I'd like to see what adult would handle that with a 'calm mind set' while they're laying there getting the pissed kicked out them by some co-worker. But we expect our kids to handle it and for parents to prepare them for it. How do you prepare a child for being destroyed emotionally or even physically?
Nothing prepares you for parenthood. All you can do is teach your kids to do what you think is right. To fight or not fight, to go tell a teacher or deal with it themselves, guns are good or bad, etc. Then all you can do is monitor them, keep them in check and worry. They go over to a new friend's house after school, the kid's parents have a locked-up gun, but the kid knows how to get into it, they play with the gun and bam your kid is dead. It's happened before numerous times and that's one of the many possibilities that lie outside your door everyday. Having served in two foreign conflicts, I'd have to say being a soldier is alot less scary than being a parent. I'd take another round of Mogadishu over the worrying about your own child.
I guess my point is, violence begets violence and we do glorify it in every form of media we currently possess. Do we push on with it the way it is and let our 'freedoms' make it worse or try to change it? I personally don't know. But if a banned or withheld game does actually help deter someone from violence or help save a life, then I think it's worth the sacrifice. Afterall, it's just a game.
#23
05/11/2002 (4:16 am)
Ok if I want to kill people I would...I wouldn't go to a game and get ideas on how to do it...I'm sure everyone hows whats wrong and right...if we have to play games to think of killing people then I don't know how we have got in to so many wars!... 
#24
Anyway... isn't it totally hypocryte that in a societey where one can freely buy weapons, the cuase of voilence would be games??? Overhere (europe, belgium), one simply can't buy a gun, or one would have to have a license (wich costs money, a research into your background, one cannot carry it in the streets, and a whole lot of other regulations, one has to wait 3 days before he can buy a gun....(this to prevent suicide),...) Result? Sure, there still is violence, but at lest not as deadly as in your country... fire fights are rare, even in criminal areas.
I'm not saying guns are to blame, but there just the easiest proof of the hypocrisy of your government.
We all live in a society where parens don't have the time to look afte their children, work is more important, and a lot of children are left alone at home, or in a day care center. Still parents blame it on others if something goes wrong with the education of they child.
Same thing when a parent asks himself how its possible his child got addicted to somethin, but doesn't link it to himself sitting all day in front of the TV drinking beer and smoking cigarettes (wich are 2 drug addictions, and a bad habbit... but still if it then passes on to their kids, it ain't their fault)
Anyway... ignorance is still the main cause games get such a bad reputation. Perhaps in a few years, when it considered a form of art, it will. Altough movies are considered a form of art and they still are blamed for voilence, but at least people know the difference between a good and a bad movie. And people understand voilance is allowed in some movies becuase it contributes to the story and is ment to shock people and let them think about it. I hope one day people will see the difference between a cheap shooter and a quality game. Still games will be blamed for voilence, but at least there will be categorys.
05/11/2002 (5:18 am)
What I'm saying here is not critisism on americans, but on your government (I say this becuase I'm not an anti american or anything... have to be carefull with what you say these days;) )Anyway... isn't it totally hypocryte that in a societey where one can freely buy weapons, the cuase of voilence would be games??? Overhere (europe, belgium), one simply can't buy a gun, or one would have to have a license (wich costs money, a research into your background, one cannot carry it in the streets, and a whole lot of other regulations, one has to wait 3 days before he can buy a gun....(this to prevent suicide),...) Result? Sure, there still is violence, but at lest not as deadly as in your country... fire fights are rare, even in criminal areas.
I'm not saying guns are to blame, but there just the easiest proof of the hypocrisy of your government.
We all live in a society where parens don't have the time to look afte their children, work is more important, and a lot of children are left alone at home, or in a day care center. Still parents blame it on others if something goes wrong with the education of they child.
Same thing when a parent asks himself how its possible his child got addicted to somethin, but doesn't link it to himself sitting all day in front of the TV drinking beer and smoking cigarettes (wich are 2 drug addictions, and a bad habbit... but still if it then passes on to their kids, it ain't their fault)
Anyway... ignorance is still the main cause games get such a bad reputation. Perhaps in a few years, when it considered a form of art, it will. Altough movies are considered a form of art and they still are blamed for voilence, but at least people know the difference between a good and a bad movie. And people understand voilance is allowed in some movies becuase it contributes to the story and is ment to shock people and let them think about it. I hope one day people will see the difference between a cheap shooter and a quality game. Still games will be blamed for voilence, but at least there will be categorys.
#25
Rightly so, and I agree that there needs to be stricter gun control laws (uhoh, now the NRA is after me!) but the same "problems" with games are in the less-"gunny" parts of the world.
Children in the US don't get protection with all the "inalienable rights". That comes with their eighteenth birthday! They can't go buy porn, they can't go buy cigarettes, and they shouldn't be able to buy games that are rated below their age.
The ONLY people who are complaining are the people under seventeen, the game developers of M games who want more profits instead of better customers, and some mindless idiots who think that the government is out to get them or hurt "their" games.
Wake up, and look at the facts. You're a kid, you have no rights, so suck it up and move on. We (as a country of adults) make the rules for you to follow, can't take it? Go make your own country or shut your whiny face.
NOTE: This wasn't aimed at anyone on GarageGames, just a large portion of gimps I've seen on other communities trying to talk with "expertise" but end up sinking to "The g0vernment is evil d00d!" or screaming how America sucks.
No, America doesn't suck. YOU suck. Get it right.
05/11/2002 (2:50 pm)
While I agree with you on many points Ward, I think you're more against guns than the actual stuff in the thread involving games.Rightly so, and I agree that there needs to be stricter gun control laws (uhoh, now the NRA is after me!) but the same "problems" with games are in the less-"gunny" parts of the world.
Children in the US don't get protection with all the "inalienable rights". That comes with their eighteenth birthday! They can't go buy porn, they can't go buy cigarettes, and they shouldn't be able to buy games that are rated below their age.
The ONLY people who are complaining are the people under seventeen, the game developers of M games who want more profits instead of better customers, and some mindless idiots who think that the government is out to get them or hurt "their" games.
Wake up, and look at the facts. You're a kid, you have no rights, so suck it up and move on. We (as a country of adults) make the rules for you to follow, can't take it? Go make your own country or shut your whiny face.
NOTE: This wasn't aimed at anyone on GarageGames, just a large portion of gimps I've seen on other communities trying to talk with "expertise" but end up sinking to "The g0vernment is evil d00d!" or screaming how America sucks.
No, America doesn't suck. YOU suck. Get it right.
#26
You talked about both gun control laws and kids not being able to buy violent video games. I didnt get that connection. :)
We do NOT need gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids. Gun control laws normally just keep guns out of the hands of normal citizens, not criminals, kids, or crazy people. The government and more laws restricting personal rights, are not the answer to this problem.
Kids probably shouldnt be allowed to buy/play violent video games if they cant buy/watch violent movies, etc. But, you have to consider that any kid whose parents LET him play GTA3 is going to be seeing enough violence etc anyway. The parents, not government or buisness, should be responsible for watching what their kids are playing.
If Jimmy the 8-year-old can play GTA3 in front of his parents, the government cant really do anything about it. It is a much deeper problem in our current society, the dissolution of the family and predominance of violence in our media. Turn on the TV, to almost any channel you want, and there is something violent on.
I dont know what the answer is. No one does. But if you want to do something about it, raise your kids to understand the differences between real violence and fake violence, and teach them to be decent human beings. You cannot do any more.
05/12/2002 (4:41 pm)
I normally agree with alot of the stuff you say matt, but I have to disagree on some points here.You talked about both gun control laws and kids not being able to buy violent video games. I didnt get that connection. :)
We do NOT need gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids. Gun control laws normally just keep guns out of the hands of normal citizens, not criminals, kids, or crazy people. The government and more laws restricting personal rights, are not the answer to this problem.
Kids probably shouldnt be allowed to buy/play violent video games if they cant buy/watch violent movies, etc. But, you have to consider that any kid whose parents LET him play GTA3 is going to be seeing enough violence etc anyway. The parents, not government or buisness, should be responsible for watching what their kids are playing.
If Jimmy the 8-year-old can play GTA3 in front of his parents, the government cant really do anything about it. It is a much deeper problem in our current society, the dissolution of the family and predominance of violence in our media. Turn on the TV, to almost any channel you want, and there is something violent on.
I dont know what the answer is. No one does. But if you want to do something about it, raise your kids to understand the differences between real violence and fake violence, and teach them to be decent human beings. You cannot do any more.
#27
My girfriends little brother is 10 years old. He plays GTA3 and DOA and stuff. With consent of his parents, yes. But he has a really good feel about good and bad and especially about what is real!
You may have heared about the dutch politician who got shot a week ago. The kid was really shook up by this. He is disgusted by (real) violence. But he likes computer games and thus GTA3. He knows it's not real and all intended for fun. His parents thought him this. In the real world hoe doesn't hurt a fly. He has never fought with another kid and I guess he never will.
I think *that* is being a good parent. Teaching them what is real and what not. And I think this is overlooked a lot. Just shielding them from any violence won't work. At some point they are going to get exposed to TV/Games/Film etc. You better teach them what is real and not and how to deal with it.
05/13/2002 (1:37 am)
I agree with this. If there is anyone to blame it's the parents. They have to teach their children what is good/bad and also what is real/fake. I think the latter is being overlooked quite fast.My girfriends little brother is 10 years old. He plays GTA3 and DOA and stuff. With consent of his parents, yes. But he has a really good feel about good and bad and especially about what is real!
You may have heared about the dutch politician who got shot a week ago. The kid was really shook up by this. He is disgusted by (real) violence. But he likes computer games and thus GTA3. He knows it's not real and all intended for fun. His parents thought him this. In the real world hoe doesn't hurt a fly. He has never fought with another kid and I guess he never will.
I think *that* is being a good parent. Teaching them what is real and what not. And I think this is overlooked a lot. Just shielding them from any violence won't work. At some point they are going to get exposed to TV/Games/Film etc. You better teach them what is real and not and how to deal with it.
Dominik Grabiec
Anyways I'm not going to comment on the stupidiy of other people, there's just too many of them, and too much stupidity going around.
The world always makes better idiots.