Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law

kukyfrope writes "The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh struck down the Michigan law previously attempting to ban the sale of certain games to minors, ruling the law unconstitutional. Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players."

Splendiferous

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Here's to more "activist judges" like this guy.

Though it's a shame when a judge pointing out that that the government has just passed an illegal law is declared a "victory."

Re:Splendiferous

[BoomerSooner (308737)]

I've got the link and it's indisputable. I played Ultima III on the Apple //e. I ran over a rabbit on the highway in rural New Mexico on accident during Spring Break.

Ultima III kills rabbits. What's next? We must protect our children (our meaning our children collectively) from deviant game players! Who knows if I ever get time to finish Ultima V someone may die somewhere.

Stop the senseless killing, ban video games outright. Oh and ban sex to since that creates killers. 100% of people that murder were created by sex, this link is irrefutable.

Thank you for your time. Have courage, we will make this land great once again.

Re:Splendiferous

[Doomstalk (629173)]

It's not so much activism, as realizing the slippery slope that censorship like this creates. As soon as you declare one medium as exempt from free speech protection, it becomes that much easier to extend the restriction to others.

Re:Splendiferous

[BoomerSooner (308737)]

"activist judges" was probably meant to be sarcastic, since (s)he used the quotes. It was interpreted by me to mean judges are only "activist" when they don't agree with your POV. For example, the SCOTUS has already said abortion is legal. To change it you would need activist judges. No one in the current administration seems to have problems with THOSE activist judges. Hell they might as well be sponsored so we know whom to support with our money. Scalia sponsored by Exxon/Mobil, brining you environmental

I found the link...

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

It's called BEING A PSYCHOPATH.

Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. :(

Best part of the decision

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

From TFA:

[Douglas Lowenstein, President of the ESA, said:] "It is noteworthy that Judge Steeh specifically chastised the state for not doing what we urged them to do from the start, which is to find less restrictive ways to help ensure that parents make sound choices about the games their kids play."

Translation:

Parents: we're not going to do your parenting for you. Take some responsibility.

Hats off to Judge Steeh.

Re:Best part of the decision

[LordEd (840443)]

How do 10 year olds get to the mall? Where do they get the money?

Sounds like 2 parent intervention points to me.

And an even better question

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

How do you not see the sames your kids are playing? As a parent it's your job to watch what your kid does in your house. No you cannot and do not want to be the all invasive 24-hour hovering parent, but you need to have basic awareness of what is going on. If a kid is able to hide a TV, videogame console, and games from you, you are doing a poor job.

Game systems should be in public areas of the house where you are likely to spend your time. That way you can keep an eye on what your kids are playing.

Here's a

Re:Best part of the decision

[Tenareth (17013)]

Most of these kids just asked their parents to buy the game, and since the parents don't spend 30 seconds finding out what the game is about, they buy it and are shocked when 3 weeks later they find out he's ripping some guys head off in the game.

Re:Best part of the decision

[Senior Frac (110715)]

I don't get it. Every time a law like this rears its head Slashdot goes nuts. Why shouldn't the sale of violent games to minors be restricted?

Because, in any truly free society, the burden is on you to prove that the sale of violent games to minors is detrimental. It is not my responsibility to prove the contrary.

Actually the bar is even higher than this! Not only must it be proven detrimental, but you also have to prove that it's the governments role to legislate it. A much harder task IMO.

"Link" is a loaded term.

[Lord Bitman (95493)]

Of course there is a "Link", of course there is a "Relationship". Those are statistical terms. There is a link between having too much money and having an Apple product. Do rounded self-contained white computers cause people to have too much money? (or, to play this role more adequetly) Do they cause people who already have just enough money to enjoy such things to get even more money?

I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.

HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE

Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )

Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).

Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.

ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!

The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"

in conclusion:
I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.

Re:"Link" is a loaded term.

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

At the risk of being redundant (for both your comment and the many stories about this trend), your arguement can be concised to "Correlation does not imply causality."

In other words, it's equally as valid to say that there is another explanation that causes both playing violent video games AND committing violent actions as the idea that one causes the other.

Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . .

[Dausha (546002)]

It appears the state saw the video game law as an answer to obscenity in gaming. The S.Ct. allows government censorship of obscenity provided the government can show a rational relation between what they have done and what legitimate state purpose they are hoping to serve. This is considered the lowest threshhold for the Government to justify the Constitutionality of one of its acts. It is by this same rational basis that allows state, local, and Federal governments to seize land from one property owner and give to another if they believe it is better economically, thus turning a property right into an economic right.

What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.

This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.

Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.

Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.

What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

Thankfully, everyone is not just like you. There are some 14-year-old kids who shouldn't be playing GTA. Kids who will attempt to emulate the violence they perform on-screen in real life. That's why the game carries the M (or A) rating...to tell PARENTS that the game may not be appropriate for their kids.

Retailers are getting a lot better about self-regulating video game sales. I don't think a 14-year-old should be able to buy GTA; however, if his parents want to buy it for him, I'm going to assume they mad

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[Goatbert (22577)]

Unfortunately, this is a frustratingly inaccurate assumption - parents do not monitor a video game as they might a movie or a television program (and many do not even monitor those enough, but that is another topic). I worked in a GameStop (it was actually a Funcoland at that point) during the GTA3/GTA Vice City period and time after time, parent or grandparent would walk up to my counter buying GTA for a kid who was in his early teens or even younger. This was, in fact, my favorite situation because I get to see the look on their face as I explain.

"Do you realize this is rated M for mature?"
"Oh, no, I didn't read the label. Why is it rated mature?"
"Because you can pick up a prositute, pay her for 'service', kill her, take the money you just paid her back, drive around running over innocent people, and then wind down by lighting bums on fire and shooting cops."

The look on their face was priceless, but it was also incredibly sad that they didn't even go to the trouble of reading the game's packaging. I just don't understand how a parent can be so unconcerned with what their child is doing, and I don't know why they want to punish the entertainment media for lazy parenting.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[fbjon (692006)]

Perhaps some parents don't realize or know just how violent a game can be these days. It doesn't come up on the threat radar.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

Anyone who doesn't realize how violent video games can be hasn't owned a TV in years. That kind of rules out video games for their kids.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

And your manager was okay with you turning down sales for him?

Just saying, I mean... Everyone I know who works in a store knows it's a better deal to sell cigarettes and porn to minors, since they'll easily make more money than the occasional fine. Having a moral conscience really isn't good for business.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[Goatbert (22577)]

Despite not liking the management, it was always stressed that we weren't supposed to sell inappropriate games to kids. We had the ESRB ratings posted on big signs as well, and we carded people who wanted to buy an M game. They were quite serious about it, and if they had been otherwise, I still would have done it - if only because it is the right thing to do.

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

Unfortunately, this is a frustratingly inaccurate assumption - parents do not monitor a video game as they might a movie or a television program (and many do not even monitor those enough, but that is another topic).

Correction: Bad parents don't. I do. Just because bad parents don't pay attention to what they are buying their children doesn't mean that restricting sales to minors is useless. It still helps the good, concerned parents make conscious decisions for their children.

I was renting a movie one day

Fathers, sons, and M-rated video games

[John_Sauter (595980)]

I was renting a movie one day when a boy—maybe 12—and his parents approached the counter next to me. The boy put a game on the counter, the clerk scanned it, and said “You are aware that this game is rated M for violence and sexual content?” The father turned to his son and asked “is that okay?” then said “fine” when his son nodded. I don't think that guy had a clue what he'd just been asked, I wanted to slap him.

I wasn't the father you saw, but I could eas

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

There are also some adults who shouldn't be parenting kids. That's the real issue, I think. In today's world, chances are sooner or later a young child will hear someone say "fuck," or surf something R-rated on cable, or click somethng online that will show them boobies, or play a violent game like GTA, or read a banned book... if not at their own house, then at someone else's. The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?

Re:GTA didn't affect me

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?

Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appr

Re:You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound o

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

Dagnabbit, don't you see! If we let the young'ins get away with this, the next thing we know they'll have hover-majigs and whatchama-copter and we'll never get them off the damn lawn!

Re:Case Study

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

You could go even deeper than this, and I think that you'll find that video games don't contribute to the problem.

I don't think it's that simple. Video games don't cause people to become violent. However, it could probably be demonstrated that they are influential in violent behavior, probably moreso than music or video due to the interactive nature. You're not just watching violence, you're practicing it.

For the vast majority of players, that has no bearing on their actions. For a select few, though, it co