Constitution Day Bonus! Oklahoma Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Constitution Day Bonus! Oklahoma Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional
September 17, 2007
According to the ESA, a federal court judge has issued a permanent injunction against Oklahoma's 2006 video game law.
Here (20-page pdf) is the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron (left).
Mark Methenitis has a legal analysis at the Law of the Game.
Meanwhile, we have reaction from Bo Andersen, president of the Entertainment Merchants Association:
It is fitting that this ruling was issued on Constitution Day... The decision is a ringing affirmation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.
Judge Cauthron’s opinion makes abundantly clear that the Oklahoma legislature overreached in attempting to restrict the distribution of video games containing fantasy violence to minors, in part because there was no evidence that the games are harmful to anyone. The judge also correctly noted that there is no way for an ordinary person to determine which games were covered by the Oklahoma law and which were not.
It is time for lawmakers to stop targeting video games and the retailers that sell them. They should recognize that all video games are rated, retailers are choosing to enforce the ratings in their stores, and the new PlayStation 3, Wii, and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Vista computer operating system all allow parents to control the types of games that can be played on them. These voluntary steps, not government regulation, are true to the spirit of the American Constitution...
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/22/10 at 07:37am
ZippyDSMlee: ds:ha! BY THE TIME THEY GET THIER BENFITS i WONT HAVE ANY LEFT!! :p
ZippyDSMlee: ds:ha! BY THE TIME THEY GET THIER BENFITS i WONT HAVE ANY LEFT!! :p
Posted 03/22/10 at 07:02am
DarkSaber: for it to cost YOU personally zippy, you'd have to actually be paying taxes instead of sponging benefits.
DarkSaber: for it to cost YOU personally zippy, you'd have to actually be paying taxes instead of sponging benefits.
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:42am
ZippyDSMlee: Like most train wrecks it wont help people much and cost us more in the end than what we would benefit from it.....
ZippyDSMlee: Like most train wrecks it wont help people much and cost us more in the end than what we would benefit from it.....
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:37am
TBoneTony: Great to see MA go to the back bench in SA, hope that new AG is more ballanced
TBoneTony: Great to see MA go to the back bench in SA, hope that new AG is more ballanced
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:36am
TBoneTony: Oh there it is
TBoneTony: Oh there it is
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:36am
TBoneTony: Shout is not working for me at the moment
TBoneTony: Shout is not working for me at the moment
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:34am
SimonBob: (Would you like to rent our Green party? We're not doing anything with it.)
SimonBob: (Would you like to rent our Green party? We're not doing anything with it.)
Posted 03/22/10 at 02:31am
SimonBob: hey america: I was watching CNN earlier, and I was thinking, you guys could use a third party.
SimonBob: hey america: I was watching CNN earlier, and I was thinking, you guys could use a third party.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:12pm
Valdearg: They beat the parliamentary trick. The senate bill is officially law, pending the President's signature. Now they vote on the fixes to that bill, in the next 15 minutes or so.
Valdearg: They beat the parliamentary trick. The senate bill is officially law, pending the President's signature. Now they vote on the fixes to that bill, in the next 15 minutes or so.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:04pm
gellymatos: Vald: No worries. I do it all the time. Trying to break the habit.
gellymatos: Vald: No worries. I do it all the time. Trying to break the habit.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:01pm
Valdearg: @Gelly: Sorry for jumping to conclusions, LOL.. I guess I read your text in a depressed voice in my head. :D
Valdearg: @Gelly: Sorry for jumping to conclusions, LOL.. I guess I read your text in a depressed voice in my head. :D
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:00pm
Valdearg: I'm staying up late, watching CSPAN and MSNBC, and cheering each and every democrat victory.
Valdearg: I'm staying up late, watching CSPAN and MSNBC, and cheering each and every democrat victory.
Posted 03/21/10 at 10:00pm
Valdearg: Yes indeedy. Even Abortion rights got gutted. Obama's going to pass an EO ensuring no federal funds are used for abortions.
Valdearg: Yes indeedy. Even Abortion rights got gutted. Obama's going to pass an EO ensuring no federal funds are used for abortions.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:59pm
gellymatos: Vald: Who said I didn't like it? I'd get a drink out if there wasn't anything where I am at.
gellymatos: Vald: Who said I didn't like it? I'd get a drink out if there wasn't anything where I am at.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:59pm
gellymatos: Vald:Well, pretty good day, wouldn't you say?
gellymatos: Vald:Well, pretty good day, wouldn't you say?
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:58pm
Valdearg: Dont sound so depressed, Gelly. This bill will help people get healthcare, who can't now. It's a perfectly Christian idea.
Valdearg: Dont sound so depressed, Gelly. This bill will help people get healthcare, who can't now. It's a perfectly Christian idea.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:57pm
gellymatos: Well, it's happened. The House Passed the Health Care Bill. Now things get interesting, to say the least.
gellymatos: Well, it's happened. The House Passed the Health Care Bill. Now things get interesting, to say the least.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:56pm
Valdearg: YES WE CAN!!! YES WE CAN!!! MAJOR HCR Vote passed!! Assuming no idocy, we could see it as law TOMORROW!!!!!!
Valdearg: YES WE CAN!!! YES WE CAN!!! MAJOR HCR Vote passed!! Assuming no idocy, we could see it as law TOMORROW!!!!!!
Posted 03/21/10 at 06:23pm
Andrew Eisen: No, I think I'll stay safe and warm in my own little world where Provolone is king and that... other cheese... doesn't exist.
Andrew Eisen: No, I think I'll stay safe and warm in my own little world where Provolone is king and that... other cheese... doesn't exist.
Posted 03/21/10 at 06:22pm
JDKJ: I wish the Speaker would ask me for what purpose does the member rise.
JDKJ: I wish the Speaker would ask me for what purpose does the member rise.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Bo Andersen's third paragraph speaks volumes.
Some of my favorite parts:
"the presence of increased viewer control and interactivity does not remove these games from the realm of First Amendment protection."
"whether the Court “believe[s] the advent of violent video games adds anything of value to society is irrelevant,” because they are just as entitled to First Amendment protection as is the finest literature."
"The fact that Defendants are attempting to regulate the flow of information to minors, rather than to adults, does not render the values protected by the First Amendment any less applicable."
"To the best of the Court’s knowledge, the Supreme Court has not suggest[ed]that the government’s role in helping parents to be the guardians of their children’s well-being is an unbridled license to governments to regulate what minors read and view.”
"Nothing submitted by Defendants shows that the “advocacy” in violent video games is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, or that it is likely to do so."
"When the Government defends a regulation on speech as a
means to . . . prevent anticipated harms, it must do more than
simply “posit the existence of the disease sought to be cured.”
It must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely
conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these
harms in a direct and material way. . . .
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664-65, 114
S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). If the state is able to show
that the psychological well-being of [its] youth is in genuine
jeopardy, it has the additional burden of showing that the
regulation is narrowly tailored to address that problem without
unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms."
"The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions
based on “common sense.”"
Paul Farinelli, Long Distance Runner, and you're not.
Well son see back when Daddy was younger, the goverment thought it was best to try to banned video games and these stumps are from the trees they had to cut down to make the paper to write the bills on. Luckly they always failed
They must have really failed a lot Daddy.
Yep XXX-0 son, all in the name of great justice
Damn what a bunch of fucking nubs
Indeed son
But would noobs become nubs in the future? And would the word fuck finally become acceptable? *can see both happen, given how messed up the English language is*
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
We don't need no, Regulation!
We don't need no thought control!
Hey politicians, leave those games alone!
Al in all it's just another, Unconstitutional law!
To quote JBJT, Hooah!
"Plaintiffs now have filed a motion for summary judgment ... to invalidate the Act as an unconstitutional violation of free speech under the First Amendment, and as unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
As of this date, the Court is unable to find a case where a similar restriction has passed constitutional muster. "
it goes on to list eight other precedent-setting cases that failed to show that violating people's 1st amendment rights was acceptable for such a law.
"Defendants claim that the Court could not “impanel a group of responsible adults who could view these ‘games’ and conclude they are suitable for children.” Having viewed the portions of three games submitted by Defendants, the Court is inclined to agree. Whether the games are “suitable,” however, is not the applicable standard for the propriety of the government placing a content-based restriction on dissemination of protected speech, even dissemination to minors."
So they probably showed them scenes from Postal, GTA, and Manhunt. Yeah those games are not for kids. But they are still protected speech.
"The fact that Defendants are attempting to regulate the flow of information to minors, rather than to adults, does not render the values protected by the First Amendment any less applicable."
I like the part where the judge tears down their argument that "Because a public Library in Alabama was able to censor their content to shield minors, we should be able to apply the same logic to retailers."
The pwnage continues:
"There is no support in the record, let alone “substantial evidence,” for Defendants’ conclusion that allowing dissemination of violent video games to minors is harmful to those minors or any others.
Beyond Defendants’ generalized statements, there is a complete dearth of legislative findings, scientific studies, or other rationale in the record to support the passage of the Defendants’ argument that “common sense” dictates that playing violent video games “is not good for children,” and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, completely fails. The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions based on “common sense.”
Oooh somebody tell that to Leeland Yee! His law is "common sense" or so he claims.
"And as much as Defendants may wish otherwise, Plaintiffs are not
required to present a study showing that the video games “are good for children.”
I love Judicial barbs and burns, it's the main reason I read these things.
"Even presuming that Defendants could demonstrate a compelling state interest, Defendants fail to make the required showing that the Act is narrowly tailored to materially advance that interest without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms."
And yet they keep on trying (and wasting OUR money)
"In support of their argument that the Act is narrowly tailored, Defendants make several claims that are highly misleading"
"Defendants’ argument regarding the Act’s purpose of supporting parents’ claim to authority also is defeated by the broad scope of the Act."
"the language of the Act undermines Defendants’ argument that the Act would assist parents, because the Act in reality would serve to punish parents who choose to disseminate materials to a minor that describe, exhibit, present, or represent “inappropriate violence.”
But... But... it's a "common sense" law! For the parents! I mean children!
Unconstitutional. FAIL. But good luck, Governator. Although if you lose at the Supreme Court level... "You won't be back."
Thank you to the Honorary Robin Cauthron for defending our nation's Constitution.
"Generalized statements?" What, is Jack Thompson one of the defendants?
*screams a lot*
*shows obscene gesture to Yee and Thompson*
*gets thrown in jail*
Well that was fun to read. A perfect victory on the perfect day.
the law makers argued that "common sense says games are bad" and that it was on the game industry to prove otherwise was ridiculus
that would mean that the state could pass any law on anything and that it was up to the people it effects to prove it's wrong.
people should demand more from their legislators
and by more i mean a basic understanding of jurisprudence and the constitution not to mention sticking with the oath they took when entering office to uphold the constitution
We Are The Champions
No Time For Losers
Because We Are The Champions Of The World
Survey Says.......
One more for the good guys!
The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions based on “common sense.”
That is going to be my response to anyone trying to ban anything from now on...
awesome. bleedin' awesome. gamers win again.
I don't even think dickless will bother to post on this one.
A great end to a great day.
"The government may not limit minors’ exposure to creative works based on a
general belief that they may be psychologically harmful, absent substantial evidence. And as much as Defendants may wish otherwise, Plaintiffs are not
required to present a study showing that the video games “are good for children.”"
"A minor who is prevented by the Act from buying or renting a video game containing “inappropriate violence” may still legally buy or rent the book or movie on which the game was based. As other courts have noted, “this
type of facial underinclusiveness undermines the claim that the regulation materially advances its alleged interests.”
"Thus, the language of the Act undermines Defendants’ argument that the Act would assist parents, because the Act in reality would serve to punish parents who choose to disseminate materials to a minor that describe, exhibit, present, or represent “inappropriate violence.”"
"Moreover, given the vagueness and subjectivity of the terms in the Act, a retailer “might know everything there is to know about the game and yet not be able to determine whether it can legally be sold to a minor.”"
Sorry again for the long double post, I accidentally hit the submit button. These are just some of my favorite quotes from the ruling. I hope that all of you have enjoyed it as well.
HOOAH, bitch!
I'm just wondering if they're trying to go for all 50 states...
If so, ha!
The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions based on “common sense.” See Kendrick, 244 F.3d at 578; Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 663-64.
Can I be the first to say "duh"?
@Judith Iscariot
I believe it's 10 overturned now.
GP: By my count, it's nine:
-Indianapolis, St. Louis, Washington State
-California, Illinois, Michigan
-Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma
We'll get you next time Constitution, NEXT TIIIIME!
Awesome Inspector Gadget reference! Reminded me of my childhood.
Anyways, it is great to see judges interpreting the laws and Constitution (signed on this day, in fact, by our forefathers) instead of legislating from the bench. Kudos to this judge and all other judges involved in protecting our freedoms. The government serves the people, not the other way around.
Sept 17 should be a holiday or something.
"Unconstitutional"........"Unconstitutional"......."Unconstitutional"........"Unconstitutional"....."Unconstitutional"...... :)
Thank you Judge Cauthron for upholding our First Amendment.
LOL
That little quip made my day
The next thing they'd try to make us prove is that videogames are NOT harmful--which would further reveal their ignorance in regards to science and its proofs. It's bad enough they can't see that studies showing a potential correlation (and just for aggressive play behavior or responses, not even violence) don't equal proof because correlation doesn't equal causation. How uneducated must these poiticians be, really, or are they just so daft, hard-headed, and narrow-minded that they latch onto whatever cause celebre sounds like it will further their voter base?
I'd love for them to have to sit through a basic elementary school-evel briefing on what science is and does and what it can and can't tell us with certainty. Maybe then they would grasp some basic science facts such as that science can't prove a negative, but only contribute evidence supporting it.
Or that a small sample size messes with statistical significance. Or that testing conditions lacking proper controls, proper accounting for other potential contributing factors, and/or demonstration that the behavior or outcomes being studied actually mean what the observers think they mean are utterly useless and far from scientific.
Actually, now that I think about it, politicians shouldhave to pass tests requiring that they show proper understandings of some basic things, like the Constitution for example.
God! What a fat stupid cow. She obviously doesn't know the law from her ass. I'll bet she graduated from fat dyke law school just like Janet Reno. If only this state would've consulted me I probably could've won this case for them (louisana was a total fluke). I'm gonna have to update my list of people I'm about make my bitch now.
People I'm gonna make bitches:
1. The Florida Bar
2. GP
3. gov. Jeb Bush
4. pres. George Bush
5. Judge Robin Cauthron
Anyways, after that, you guys are all invited to my party after I'm made king of florida. Just so you know it's BYOH (bring your own HOOAH!!!).
I'm a lawyer, but not for long,
Jack Thompson
The pure fact that this law would have helped keep allready troubled children from being further influenced by inmoral and violent games.
I do not believe that the thought of depriving WHO the gaming industry can sell DIRECTLY TO (especially a minor who has no proper supervision from a parent that gives no $h1t) is a violation of any constitutional right... More like it is a protective custody of those children that are allready in a fragile state as for their outlook and value of human life.