Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

September 20, 2010 -

Eighty-two scholars and researchers signed their name to a brief voicing opposition to the California law at the center of Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

Noting that the issue now awaiting a Supreme Court ruling is subject to strict scrutiny because it attempts to regulate the sale of games based on content, the scholars’ brief argues that California has neither provided “substantial evidence” that games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors playing them, nor does the state “demonstrate that the restriction will ‘alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.’”

Additionally:

Indeed, California does not offer any reliable evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that playing violent video games causes psychological or neurological harm to minors. California confesses it cannot prove causation, but points to studies that it says show a “correlation” between the two. But the evidence does not even do that.

Furthermore, the brief states that California and Senator Yee “ignore a weighty body of scholarship undertaken with established and reliable scientific methodologies, debunking the claim that the video games California seeks to regulate have harmful effects on minors.”

The brief then systematically dispatches research cited by California, including that of Douglas Gentile, which was billed as “rife with methodological flaws”, and Craig Anderson, whose research was labeled as “no help to California.”

Research leveraged by Senator Yee was additionally labeled as reliant on a “one-page statement of scholars,” while his mentioning of “recent research,” “new data,” and “hundreds of studies” to back his claims were deemed “broad assertions,” with citations appearing “rarely.”

Those signing on to the brief included Texas A&M International University Assistant Professor Christopher J Ferguson and Harvard Medical School’s Cheryl Olson.

View or download the full brief (PDF) here.

Comments

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

From the brief, page 17:

"Even if the Gentile survey were relevant, it simply does not say what California says it does. California states that the survey “suggest[s] a causal connection between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior.” Pet. Br. 53. It does no such thing. The survey makes absolutely no finding that exposure to violent video games leads to physical aggression. To the contrary, it explicitly cautions against making that inference: “It is important to note . . . that this study is limited by its correlational nature. Inferences about causal direction should be viewed with caution.” JA 638 (emphasis added)"
[bold emphasis added by me]

Lovely. Simply lovely.

The further question that the Gentile survey asks, as well:

"Are young adolescents more hostile and aggressive because they expose themselves to media violence, or do previously hostile adolescents prefer violent media? Due to the correlational nature of this study, we cannot answer this question directly."

Shows you how much California lawmakers read.

[edit] And hey, in the footnotes on page 18, a reference to Grand Theft Childhood. :D

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

Shows you how much California lawmakers read.

Also shows how they failed reading comprehension.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

Call me cynical if you want to, but I suspect that counsel on brief know full and well that their "studies" don't establish the required causal link but nevertheless attempt to cast them as doing just that. It's what's known in the legal profession as "bullshitting the court."

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

 Indeed. If i recall i think part of California's argument is that they admit they lack strict evidence because they can't conduct the kind of studies they would need to do that would prove a casual link. Afterall such a study would not only take multiple years but also require that maintain strict control over the subjects' media consumption and social interaction to avoid the effects of outside factors, and that is just full of serious ethical problems; especially if you need to use minors... So they are trying to use that excuse to get by without the need for absolutely strict evidence. And so they are trying to exaggerate and distort the results of their studies just in an effort to build even the most minimal link.

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

And even that argument is wrong (that they can't conduct the studies)... from page 34-35:

"At minimum, the scholarship that California and Senator Yee ignore belies the notion that the “substantial evidence of causation” standard imposes an “insurmountable hurdle” on science or legislatures. Pet. Br. 52. These studies show unequivocally that the causation research can be done, and, indeed, has been done. The problem confronting California and Senator Yee thus is not the constitutional standard; it is simply their inability to meet that standard in this case because validated scientific studies prove the opposite, leaving no empirical foundation for the assertion that playing violent video games causes harm to minors."

I really don't see how California can win.  They can't win on science, they can't win on first amendment... are they ahead on anything other that "common sense" and "think of the children"?

 

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's got a history of making more than their fair share of dead-ass wrong decisions. See, e.g., Korematsu, Plessy, Dred Scott, etc., etc.  

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

"The brief then systematically dispatches research cited by California" <--- I like that word.

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

Pah, experts? What do they know?!

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

But...  But the children!  Won't somebody please think of the children? (And quit thinking of facts, logic, reason, etc.)

Re: Scholars File Brief Opposing California Videogame Law

Forget about the children what about the rights of adults when it comes to games? Won's some body please think of us adults? 

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
WonderkarpSo I found out I'm Invincible Today. I drove through a Tornado and didnt even know it. was windy and torrential downpour but I drove through like a boss. 05/26/2015 - 7:35pm
ZenEnded up giving the code to Andrew so he gets to be the other guinea pig lol.05/26/2015 - 6:53pm
ZenSo...who wants to help with an experiment and get a free game for 3DS and possibly Wii U lol? Gave a friend the Wii u OlliOlli code from the Humble Bundle and it gave him the 3DS one too. Still have a 3DS code which may give a Wii U version too.05/26/2015 - 4:35pm
Zenjust wish they had been as open about development as they were with X1 and PS4. All we got were interviews saying everything was great and then this lol.05/26/2015 - 4:14pm
ZenYeah, he brought it up again as time went on and stated it was not to be taken seriously. And I am in NO way defending people who are acting like...well....the not so nice way to say "butts". And I don't personally think they haven't worked on the game, I05/26/2015 - 4:12pm
Andrew EisenSo I can see why Bell would be ultra defensive and snippety. But, again, still not an advisable thing to say.05/26/2015 - 3:57pm
Andrew Eisennot to mention horrifically insulting.05/26/2015 - 3:56pm
Andrew EisenAgreed, even out of frustration, not an advisable thing to post. As for the rest, sounds like it thought its tweeks and optimizations would work. The idea that it was stringing everyone along and not actually working on it is nearly nonsensical...05/26/2015 - 3:55pm
Zenand looking great...yet refused to even show a single screen shot while touting their open development on X1 and PS4. People are now asking if they even worked on the game or if it was dropped in the beginning & they were keeping up appearances instead.05/26/2015 - 3:53pm
ZenI understand that, but making a blanket statement to cover an entire market like that will do nothing more than push consumers away or alienate a group. Other issues stem from the interviews and public announcements they made stating the game is running05/26/2015 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenNot an advisable thing to post, I'll grant you.05/26/2015 - 3:47pm
Andrew EisenReading the thread, it looks like he's just getting frustrated with the obnoxious and unreasonable members of the board (most of whom signed up that day).05/26/2015 - 3:47pm
ZenNintendo users in general by stating "Yup, and if you need to pass this on, we really dislike Nintendo users." on their forum. Sincere or not, it's annoyed some fans & put doubt on the company even trying.05/26/2015 - 3:35pm
ZenThey pushed that even just a few months ago it was running great, with effects, but they just needed a few tweeks before release. I posted about this last night, but it has since cycled thru. Ian Bell also had some fairly disparaging things to say about05/26/2015 - 3:34pm
Matthew Wilson@AE @iamc they admired they cant do wiiu, and they have a valid reason for it. the wiiu is too weak.05/26/2015 - 3:24pm
Andrew EisenLied about what?05/26/2015 - 3:11pm
IanCThey outright lied, they kept pushing that it was coming out on Wii U right to they got a publisher, then went quiet. Funny that...05/26/2015 - 3:09pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.vg247.com/2015/05/26/project-cars-struggling-to-hit-720p30fps-on-wii-u/ I love that he is honest. they admited that they are at their wits end with the wiius hardware.05/26/2015 - 1:48pm
E. Zachary KnightHumbleSupport has said the codes don't expire. So That is pretty tempting.05/26/2015 - 1:38pm
E. Zachary KnightThe only problem is that I don't own a WiiU or 3DS and I would be worried that whatever codes I get would expire before I bought one.05/26/2015 - 1:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician