February 15, 2007
As reported by GamePolitics, on Monday oral agruments were heard by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis as the state of Minnesota appealed a District Court judge's 2006 finding that its video game law was unconstitutional.
Audio of Monday's hearing is available here and it's definitely worth a listen. The hearing runs about 40 minutes. Unfortunately, the audio quality is intermittent as some of the speakers seem to move away from the mic at times.
Perhaps surprisingly, the judges did not seem entirely convinced by the arguments put forth by the attorney representing the video game industry.
It is not known how soon the Circuit Court will issue a ruling.
Audio of Monday's hearing is available here and it's definitely worth a listen. The hearing runs about 40 minutes. Unfortunately, the audio quality is intermittent as some of the speakers seem to move away from the mic at times.
Perhaps surprisingly, the judges did not seem entirely convinced by the arguments put forth by the attorney representing the video game industry.
It is not known how soon the Circuit Court will issue a ruling.
Comments
That statement is really scary, that should instantly raise a red flag to why this law should be struck down. So now it's the state's job to legislate how our children should think? No that's the parents' job and that instantly should show that the state has malicious intent.
Then comes the comment "We are talking about the Constitutional Rights of Children" (or something along these lines). Ummm.. no we're not... we're talking about the Constitutional Rights of the Gaming Industry. Children aren't the ones "Speeching".
I fear for this country's future.
I worry when the people making decisions have no clue what they are discussing. Which is why the politicians shouldn't be allowed to make these laws in the first place.
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).
Thats correct, all you need to prove that something is harmfull is have a ton of money, a huge ego, and a bunch of special intrest groups to back you up. Because, well, if a minority of people says it's true, then it must be.
posting from home.
- Warren Lewis