Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law

Posted by Zonk on Tue Apr 04, 2006 08:28 AM
from the judge-uses-finishing-move-on-opposing-council dept.
The Courts Games
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • Splendiferous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @08:35AM (#15057209)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by BoomerSooner (308737) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @08:45AM (#15057302) Homepage Journal
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • I remember Ultima III (on the Atari 800, IIRC, in my case), and if that taught me violence, tile floors, treasure chests and tall grass would be toast.

    • Re:Splendiferous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doomstalk (629173) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @08:47AM (#15057326)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • "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
  • It's called BEING A PSYCHOPATH.

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

  • Best part of the decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Tuesday April 04 2006, @08:39AM (#15057244)

    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.

  • "Link" is a loaded term. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman (95493) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @08:56AM (#15057413) Homepage
    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.
  • so its like all the other people are also punished for someone going insane...

  • Relation . . . No Judicial Activism . . . (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dausha (546002) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @11:25AM (#15058890) Homepage
    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.
    • Although, I should point out that the Supreme Court has said in the past (by upholding campaign finance restrictions) that corporations may not have First Amendment rights. A corporation is not "the People" for whom the Constitution protects in this contex
    • This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.

      I would be curious as to why you think that obscenity caselaw was used, when the definition of obsce
      • You make a good point. I should have been more clear as to my logic--which is typically murky.

        I used obscene in the older meaning, which was to mean something abhorrent. I neglected the sexual use because at least obscenity does not carry an immediacy elem
        • Obscentity can also mean speech deemed to be against community standards.

          No. In a legal sense, obscenity has a very specific meaning. In order for speech to be obscene, it must:

          1) When taken as a whole, applying community standards, appears to appeal to pr
    • pff you're the exception that proves the rule! *later! off to kill some nazi'*
    • 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 th
      • There are some adults that shouldn't be playing GTA. Nobody stops them.

        • Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @09:00AM (#15057457) Homepage Journal
          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?
          [ Parent ]

          • Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:3, Insightful)

            by 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
            • 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 tel
          • There are also some adults who shouldn't be parenting kids.

            You, sir, have become a friend.
      • "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 made the decision that he can deal with what he will see (and, virtually, do) and have no objections to the game being in their

      • Re:GTA didn't affect me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Goatbert (22577) on Tuesday April 04 2006, @09:06AM (#15057510)
        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.
        [ Parent ]
        • 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.
        • 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. Havi
          • 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,
                • You misunderstand me. I'm all for informing the parent, and letting the parents of the child parent the frickin' child. But what he was doing was refusing to sell games to kids (it was implied the parents weren't there). It is perfectly legal in most st

                  • It is perfectly legal in most states to sell M rated video games to kids and therefore the store should stay out of it.

                    No, they have the right to refuse a sale. Don't like it? Don't go there.

                    What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their mo

                • He wasn't informing the parents, which I fully advocate. He was carding the kids themselves (implying the parents weren't there). It's not the store's responsibility to deny kids games. If you don't want your kids buying games, don't give them the money

                  • It is not the job of the government or Gamespot to shield my kids from violent video games. If I want that to happen I'll see to it personally. Just as any good parent would.

                    If you want your kids to be able to play GTA3, go buy it for them. Gamestop is

        • 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. Jus

          • 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 conte
    • 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 inf

        • Practicing violence? I defy you to go out and try casting spells. Or even shooting a .50 Desert Eagle. I'm confident that virtually all players, despite their "practice" in Counterstrike, Rainbow Six, and Half-Life, really suck at shooting in real life.


          I'm
          • "Why do violent people get in fights, steal cars, or shoot police? You think those ideas come out of a vacuum?"

            That's really absurd. You think that getting into fights, something which we've been doing since before we were primates, is due to the media? Yo

            • Nice ad hominem. Asshole.


              I thought so. Actually, I was making a point with it. You (assuming you are the same person, posting as AC for some reason or another) are being ridiculous.

              The problem is that you are taking a correlation (video games & violenc

              • Engaging in simulated activities often stimulates the same part of the brain as actually engaging in the activity in real life. Throwing a grenade at someone in BF2 may not actually kill someone, but a small part of your brain registers that killing is en

    • Re:Education Correlation? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iainl (136759)
      Of course, where your argument falls down to some extent is that the RC simulator

      a) claims to be a simulator, and realistic, and
      b) uses the same control system as a real RC vehicle.

      Clicking on a head-shaped collection of polygons is rather different to aim

        • I'll bet you drive slower in the rain, though. Playing GT3 has made me more conservative in crap weather, because I can see what happens when my rear end gets loose in a turn. Also, Handling cars in GT3 is anything but easy - I mean really, who in their ri

    • Losses
      Public perception of the promoter of the bad law likely improves.
      Public perception of the judiciary likely falls.
      Someone has to take significant risk to ensure the government behaves properly.

      Gains
      The bad law is gone.
      It is possible the promoter of th
    • Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have laws that codify compliance with the ESRB ratings. Also, retailers like Walmart and EB Games have voluntarily agreed to apply the ESRB ratings to purchases in their stores across Canada.

Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.