Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down as unconstitutional a California statute purporting to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In a 30-page decision (PDF), in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the federal appeals court ruled that 'the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act's labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State's controversial opinion.'"

Here's a quarter honey, buy a clue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ninth also leads in the number of cases that don't wind up being reversed. Not that either statistic tells us anything meaningful about the likelihood of this particular ruling being reversed.

The Jack Thompson of Video game research

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHA! Once again the Jack Thompson of violence in video game research, Dr. Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, has been thoroughly rejected by some clued-in judges

From the FPDF

Even upon lay review, however, the disclaimers in this article, alone, significantly undermine the inferences drawn by the State in support of its psychological harm rationale.17

      17
            Dr. Anderson's hearing testimony in the Blagojevich case, which is in
the record, contains his assent to the statements that there is probably an
"infinite" number of stimuli that could cause aggression or aggressive
thoughts in a person (e.g., a picture of a gun), and that his selection of vio-
lent video games was "largely a matter of [his] choice."

...

Thus, Dr. Anderson's research has readily admitted flaws
that undermine its support of the State's interest in regulating
video games sales and rentals to minors, perhaps most impor-
tantly its retreat from the study of the psychological effects of
video games as related to the age of the person studied.18
Although not dispositive of this case, we note that other
courts have either rejected Dr. Anderson's research or found
it insufficient to establish a causal link between violence in
video games and psychological harm. See Kendrick, 244 F.3d
at 578; Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 653; Entm't Software
Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 & n.1 (D. Minn.
2006); Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d at 1063.

Ever wonder where the "scientific" studies that stupid lawmakers use as a basis to establish justification for these crap laws come from? Well, now you know. Thankfully, the judges can tell the difference between good science and bullshit science. Too bad the fucking politicians can't.

Re:I Believe in censorship.

[Faylone]

The ESRB warnings do not hold the weight of law, they are a private company. I can make a game and it doesn't HAVE to be rated.

Re:Good Call

[Anonymous Coward]

We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.

Except we don't. MPAA ratings are just guidelines, exactly the same as ESRB ratings. Most theatres choose to prevent people under the age of 17 from entering R-rated movies when not accompanied by a parent, just as most video game resellers choose to prevent people under the age of 17 from buying MA-rated video games when not accompanied by a parent.

It never ceases to amaze me that, despite the seemingly weekly "Someone's trying to ban video games!" article on slashdot, there are still people with the misguided notion that MPAA ratings are enforced by the government.

Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Did anyone notice that the lawyers who successfully argued for "freedom of speech" here are the same ones who are fighting so hard [blogspot.com] to prevent the televising of the SONY v. Tenenbaum RIAA case?

Re:Shit man, I bet...

[Mr2001]

We likewise can agree that certain subject matter such as sexually explicit material are inappropriate for people under a certain age.

Speak for yourself. There's no factual evidence that viewing sexually explicit material is harmful to anyone under any particular age. Calling it "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion, no different from calling political or religious material "inappropriate".

Re:Good Call

[compro01]

We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.

Please cite the relevant law. I am quite sure that it does not exist.

Re:Shit man, I bet...

[Toonol]

Yes, it is a double standard. We should scrutinize laws banning all forms of speech, not just video games.

Re:Shit man, I bet...

[johnsonav]

The real issue is why would any politician vote for a law such as this which has already been shown time and again to be an automatic failure then waste money defending the failed law.

Because that way, the politician can say he "did something" about the issue. When stupid angry parents write letters to the legislator, he can assure them he's working hard to protect their poor little children.