Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban 190
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. (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:1, Informative)
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
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. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good Call (Score:2, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shit man, I bet... (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shit man, I bet... (Score:3, Informative)
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.