I LOVE listening to these hearings.

Yikes, for the first time it doesn't sound to good for the video game industry. It's actually a little scary.

One of those judges (sounds like a fairly old guy) seems like a real jerk, the way he interrupts the games industry lawyer.

The part where the DA said that they don't need to prove a causal relationship between games and violent behavior is what really bugs me. So we don't NEED to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that something is harmful in order to ban it.

I fear for this country's future.

@Terminator44

Then again, it's REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt", certain things. For example, it's hard to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that talking on the phone while driving causes accidents. It may be certain conversations require more focus than others, it may be that most people who get into accidents while talking on the phone happened to drop the phone, it could be that the schmuck in the passenger seat tried to take the phone from the driver, distracting them. But in the end, it's deemed enough of a FACTOR in the risk that though it may not be a direct cause, it deserves regulation. I think this is what she meant by her feeling that causality is not necessary when arguement for correlation exists.

Never-the-less, I think proven Causality would probably be the only thing that could allow these laws to pass (assuming such causality existed).

That was very good IMO. Though I think the games industry lawyer was much more stable in backing her arguments whereas her opponent seemed a little flustered, like she really didn't expect a couple of those questions and had a hard time forming a reply. Tho under the pressure I still think she did rather well.

I'll listen to the audio and make a comment tomorrow. It sounds like something I'd get worked up over. And I'm getting ready for bed. It's not time to get worked up over something like this. You should have seen me the last time this kind of audio poped up. (The one where the confuse Bully and the Super Columbine game.) I was literaly yelling at the computer. While I'm doing this my roomate comes and sees me ranting at the pre-recorded audio and thought the whole thing was terribly funny.

posting from home.

- Warren Lewis

Sorry to double post, but I have a response to what was said about children not being the ones "speeching." They still have a First Amendment right to view protected material. The limits are broader, but only in the sense of things that are already considered restricted for adults, the definition of those limits are widened (i.e. obscenity). The industry would theoretically not be affected, as they do not get fined for selling the games, and the kids are warned to buy at their own risk. This is, in essence, restricting a population from viewing an expressive medium, and punishing them for the times they do. Also, if the 8th Circuit does overturn the trial court, framing the issue in this way will also make it more likely the Supreme Court will review the issue, which would be very important to get a decision in our favor.

[...] GP: Judge Wollman’s critical comments regarding violent games are not particularly surprising for those who may have listened to last February’s arguments. At that day the panel of three 8th Circuit Court judges asked some very pointed questions of video game industry attorneys. [...]