BREAKING NEWS: Illinios Videogame Law Ruled Unconstitutional

[njiska]

Article (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/148962.html#cutid1)

From GamePolitics:
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly has ruled in favor of the video game industry in its suit against the Safe Games Illinois Act.

The ruling is a huge victory for the video game industry, including the ESA, VSDA and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA). It represents a major defeat for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (left), who championed the legislation.

You can view the first page of Judge Kennelly's ruling. If you're hardcore, and want the whole 53-page enchilada, click here (http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/ill-53.pdf).

In reading his ruling, Judge Kennelly obviously grasped what games are about:

"Video games are one of the newest and most popular forms of artistic expression. They most resemble films and television shows by telling stories through pictures, text, and sound, but they also parallel popular books, such as the Choose Your Own Adventure series, which enable readers to make decisions about how the plot and characters will develop. Video games are generally designed to entertain players and viewers, but they can also inform and advocate viewpoints. They are therefore considered protected expression under the First Amendment. See Am. Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572, 579 (7th Cir. 2001)."

Regarding testimony on behalf of the Illinois video game law by Dr. Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, Judge Kennelly said:

"Dr. Anderson testified that playing violent video games is one activity that primes aggressive thoughts and teaches aggressive scripts... As a result of regularly playing violent video games, Dr. Anderson testified, these scripts or knowledge structures become 'chronically accessible' and ultimately become 'automatized.' The research underlying Dr. Anderson's testimony, however, does not support such a stark and sweeping conclusion."

There's more...

"Even if one were to accept the proposition that playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts or behavior, there is no evidence that this effect is at all significant. Dr. Anderson provided no evidence supporting the view that playing violent video games has a lasting effect on aggressive thoughts and behavior – in other words, an effect that lingers more than a short time after the player stops playing the game."

Also spanked were the Illinois legislators who passed the bill:

"Finally, the Court is concerned that the legislative record does not indicate that the Illinois General Assembly considered any of the evidence that showed no relationship or a negative relationship between violent video game play and increases in aggressive thoughts and behavior... It included no data whatsoever that was critical of research finding a causal link between violent video game play and aggression. These omissions further undermine defendants' claim that the legislature made 'reasonable inferences' from the scientific literature based on 'substantial evidence.'"
-------------------------------

For those of you who have been following this issue this is huge news. Talk about a precident, Michigan and California are next. Looks like the federal bill may lose steam too.

If you want to read the entire 53 page statement, check here (http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/ill-53.pdf)

[Poofta!]

what was the lawsuit and bill about,... in a non-53 page nutshell.

[kevin_psx]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.

[Snapple]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.

Where did the article say that they should? They have parents.

Anyway, this is great news.

[njiska]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.

News Flash Kevin Movie are not restricted by federal law. It's all voluntary which is what the industry wants. No federeral regualtion especially one so vague.

Besides who are you to say that children (defined as anyone UNDER 18) should or should not be playing anything? Determining what's right for you're kids doesn't determine what's right for everyone elses and as the courts finding shows there's no evidence that proves it's of benefit.


what was the lawsuit and bill about,... in a non-53 page nutshell.

Here's your nutshell and i assure you it's not 53 pages.

basically the bill bans the sale of games defined by the state as violent from sale to anyone under 18. It completely ignores the ESRB in favour of vaguly definded state standards. The bill also contianed no provisions for determining what games are to be restricted. They list objectionable content, but they have no provisions for a ratings board to determine what is what.

Basically detemining what's acceptable and what isn't is a crap shoot.

[Griking]

Of course it was. Videogame lobbyists have tons of money to throw at politicians.

[njiska]

Of course it was. Videogame lobbyists have tons of money to throw at politicians.

NIMF and other's also have lots of money to throw at politicians. They also have "Won't someone please think of the children" fear mongering.

[smokehouse]

I can say first hand that I live in Illinois and Rod Blagojevich is not only a moron, he is also the worst and most destructive gov this state ahs seen in quite some time. Get this, he closed down multiple state run mental institutions releasing many insane back on the streets but has no problem spending millions to pass some ridiculous video game laws.

I’m glad this was overturned. I’m also glad I’ll get to vote him out of office soon.

[XxMe2NiKxX]

...Ugh.

It is the PARENTS responsibility to teach their kids not to shoot other people, not the state. I wish people would stop passing laws to compensate for bad parents.

[exit]

I wish people would stop passing laws to compensate for bad parents.

The parents will always say "but I didn't know that the game named "Killier Bloodsucking Hookers" wasn't meant for Johnny!" For some reason they always side with the parents, no matter how neglectful they really are and attack videogame companies.


Video games are generally designed to entertain players and viewers, but they can also inform and advocate viewpoints.

That's one of the best statements in the defense of videogames that I've seen in awhile. People always tend to look at the violence and overlook the overall message that some games try to express (the ending of Killer 7 for example).

[djbeatmongrel]

awesome news. people arguing about bills like this should remember that if laws like this are passed they should apply them to movies and music as well. you cant say that one form of media should be controlled when another form of media could have the same content.

just becuase its a videogame doesnt it make it justifiable for a parent to just blame it for damaging a child, its the parents roll to monitor what their children are exposed to. its like letting a kid read an adult aimed comic becuase comics are "for kids". you will have to regulate comics the same way videogames are at risk of being controlled. that wont happen because of the first amendment (or whats left of it with our current administration...)

/rant

[dcescott]

The first amendment is very important. That's the bottom line.

I am a parent and I am responsible for how my daughter is raised. In due respect, GTA series and stuff like Doom3 isn't built around a 3 year old's understanding. However, I choose not to let her see that kind a entertainment. My opinion, my kid. I don't need a politician to make a rule for that.

I don't have a problem with violent video games, and honestly legislation should be focusing on other topics. I live in Texas, things are different from Illinois or state to state for that matter. Fussing over violent video games is bull. There's tougher issues to tackle.

[njiska]

Video games are generally designed to entertain players and viewers, but they can also inform and advocate viewpoints.

That's one of the best statements in the defense of videogames that I've seen in awhile. People always tend to look at the violence and overlook the overall message that some games try to express (the ending of Killer 7 for example).

I'm glad you like that statement but you should change your quote to reflect the Judge in the caes, since he's the one who wrote it into his final decision.

As for you're comment about Killer 7 i'm actually gonna disagree with you. THE WHOLE DAMN GAME DESERVES CREDIT not just the ending.

Take a look at this Plot Analysis and you'll see what i mean.

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/gamecube/file/killer7_plot.txt

[lendelin]

Good news! BTW, when the late DP member Bargora was still alive, we discussed this bill, and Bargora cited the law. A terrible law which would give dictatorial powers to self appointed concerned educators.

I liked in particular this part of the ruling:


As a result of regularly playing violent video games, Dr. Anderson testified, these scripts or knowledge structures become 'chronically accessible' and ultimately become 'automatized.' The research underlying Dr. Anderson's testimony, however, does not support such a stark and sweeping conclusion."


Anderson from the University of Iowa is a politically agenda-driven propagandist, to put it mildly (he's also associated with the National Institute on media and the Family). I read two published articles by the guy which were theoretically unfound, conceptually idiotic, statistically ga-ga, and in its conclusion almost a parody of academic research. He gave in its conclusion the equivalent of "if you get a parking ticket in all likelihood you'll soon murder someone."

Anderson regards also 95% of all videogames 'violent' (including all Super Mario and Sonic games), deals with mere correlations and sells them as cause-effect-relationships, and gives lectures about violent videogames in High Schools.


"Finally, the Court is concerned that the legislative record does not indicate that the Illinois General Assembly considered any of the evidence that showed no relationship or a negative relationship between violent video game play and increases in aggressive thoughts and behavior... It included no data whatsoever that was critical of research finding a causal link between violent video game play and aggression.

This statement is exactly on target. They picked questionable research and propaganda to justify the law. The majority of research shows that there is no effect at all of so-called violent games on behavior. Period. In some cases even less aggressive behavior was shown after playing violent games which is also in accordance with the psychological katharsis theory (you just channel aggression by playing it out).

This hypocracy and nonsense is what makes me mad and is frustarting -- there is no substance and justification for such legislation, not in California and none for the recently introduced bill in Congress. This substantless babble is also the reason why I defend vehemently Rockstar in the hot coffee-patch issue. If there is no reason to be concerned, then I blame the awfully concerned as hysterical, hyppocritical, or just simple minded no matter if their actions are done for vote hunting, self-esteem or actually true "concern."

NIMF and David Walsh have two faces -- one in their research and academic statements in which they stress that aggressive behavior and playing games MIGHT be linked (note: just a correlation! and that is even questionable), and their PR babble on TV and in front of microphones and standing in the background behind politicians when they claim that violent behavior is learned through videogames.

Their startegy is to cast with dumb reasoning enough doubt so they can say "just to be on the safe side." A capitulating reasoning I heard all too often.

These simple minded educational dicatators cannot just accept that their simple assumption never hold up, doesn't hold up, and never will, namely that human beings just DO what they read, hear, watch, and play. This was never true for novels, comic books, music, paintings, advertisement, pornography, and games.

Games indeed fall under the first amendment right of free artistic expression like all other art forms, no matter what you or I think of GTA or Rockstar, hip-hop, poltical carricatures, Andy Warhol, Edouard Manet, Adam Sandler, Oprah Winfrey or David Letterman.

[njiska]

A great rant about NIMF

Today the National PTA rejected NIMF including it during their press release on their report card. Further more the Nation PTA does not agree with NIMF's findings on the ESRB.

According to the PTA, "The 10th Annual MediaWise Video and Computer Game Report Card, released yesterday by the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF), contained erroneous statements about National PTA's position on the Entertainment Software Rating Board's (ESRB) rating system. In fact, National PTA does not endorse NIMF's report. Further, it does not agree with the reports characterization of ESRB and its rating system."

"National PTA works with groups like the ESRB to provide information about the rating system to assist parents and children so they can make an informed decision in purchase and game play. National PTA continues to ensure parents are informed and retailers enforce the rules. "

Article (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/148233.html)

Guess that means:

National PTA > State PTA > NIMF > The now completely worthless and uncreditable Jack Thompson.

[lendelin]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.

How so?

...and don't we have already the same restrictions for games which apply to movies and playboy videos?

...and did you ever go into a K-Mart or Wal-Mart and checked which kind of DVDs you are able to buy without ratings or needed a magnifying glass in order to find the rating?

[Ed Oscuro]

gg @ smokehouse and njiska, and especially exit for sticking through Killer 7! Glad some people get it.

[kevin_psx]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.
News Flash Kevin Movie are not restricted by federal law. It's all voluntary which is what the industry wants.

Aplogies. Did not know that 15 year olds could go see NC-17-rated movies or purchase "College Girls in Heat". Thought that was illegal.

So you're saying it's legal for 15 year olds to see NC-17 movies or buy porn vids?

[Promophile]

back when we first debated the topic I posted a link to an article where they interviewed one of the legislators who voted for the anti-videogame bill, and he basically came out and said he only voted for it so it wouldn't come back and bite him next election day. I have a feeling more than one legislator voted in favor of it for that reason alone.

[njiska]

disagree. Minors should not be playing Grand Theft Killer or Playboy Mansion. They should be restricted same as movies or playboy videos.
News Flash Kevin Movie are not restricted by federal law. It's all voluntary which is what the industry wants.

Aplogies. Did not know that 15 year olds could go see NC-17-rated movies or purchase "College Girls in Heat". Thought that was illegal.

So you're saying it's legal for 15 year olds to see NC-17 movies or buy porn vids?

Yes to NC-17, debatable to Hardcore porn. The difference is because of creative merit. John Waters movies are art (despite what somepeople think) but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit may have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

But porn is a completely seperate debate.

[kevin_psx]

Aplogies. - So you're saying it's legal for 15 year olds to see NC-17 movies or buy porn vids?
Yes to NC-17, debatable to Hardcore porn. The difference is because of creative merit. John Waters movies are art (despite what somepeople think) but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit. Many have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.


Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna?

[Griking]

but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit may have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

But isn't this the arguement that the gaming industryis taking, that their games are forms of art and therefore protected? Who determines what is considered art and what has no artistic merit? Obviously somebody with the power to write laws made that determination in the case of porn. I'm assuming that the same people can make the same determination with videogames if they felt that was the case.

[njiska]

That's a matter for the courts not me. Hell i already live in a place with federal regulation.

[ty896]

but I Dream of Jenna is generally considered by many states to have no artistic merit may have ruled that porn is harmful to children and thus not available to minors.

But isn't this the arguement that the gaming industryis taking, that their games are forms of art and therefore protected? Who determines what is considered art and what has no artistic merit? Obviously somebody with the power to write laws made that determination in the case of porn. I'm assuming that the same people can make the same determination with videogames if they felt that was the case.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'll try not to go too far offtopic...

This is why the current battle over the supreme court is so important. If W gets his way and Judge Alito is allowed to join with Roberts, Thomas & Scalia we will be only one slim vote from seeing all kinds protections disappear. For the sake of this discussion, I'll limit this to games, but it still applies to other things as well.

Remember that the one thing that all these men have in common is that they are all said to be "originalists", favoring a "strict" interpretation of the US Constitution based on the actual text of the document. This is said to stand in direct opposition to the stance taken by "activist" judges who are accused of "creating rights [such as privacy] out of whole cloth".

Now unfortunately video games are not mentioned in the constitution, it seems they were not to be invented for another 200 years. :/

So to answer your question, it's the supreme court that decides what is eligible for constitutional protection. They are the ones (past courts) who said that "obsenity", not "porn" (and there is a difference), is not protected.

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO.

We will just have to see if future courts maintain this freedom or if indeed the real "activists" get their way. :(

[njiska]

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO.


Bah hot coffee was just an example of how pathetic things have gotten in the states as far as morals go.

But if there is one game deserving of the title of obscene it's Custar's Revenge.

The game where you dodge indian arrows in order to rape a squaw. Terrible.

[Xizer]

Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna?

Porn in Playboy: The Mansion does have artistic merit, considering games are an art form.

My problem with this law is it places no responsibility on the parents, and in addition, it also fails to even mention movies, music, books, or all the other things that aren't restricted to minors. Rather, it focuses on video games themselves.

Not only that, I don't think I've yet to find a retailer that will sell M rated games to minors. I also disagree with porn being illegal to sell to minors...these forms of entertainment are not something which will harm a person physically. Do I approve of the bans on cigarettes and liquor? Well of course I do. That's because they ARE harmful. Media may harm some nutjob mentally, but that is not the job of the government. The majority will not be affected by these forms of entertainment. The majority rules. Well, sadly, it SHOULD, but as this country goes down the shitter more every day, it doesn't.

Summary: Stupid people suck.

[Griking]

So to answer your question, it's the supreme court that decides what is eligible for constitutional protection. They are the ones (past courts) who said that "obsenity", not "porn" (and there is a difference), is not protected.

While I have never seen an obscene video game, I guess they could exist (and no Hot Coffee ain't even close). But short of that, all games deserve protection IMO. :(

Actually, I think that it would be easier to argue that some videogames are obscene than pornographic. Obscene can take many forms. To many people violence is considered obscene. And lets be honest, many of the most popular videogames are extremely violent.

[Mangar]

This is why the current battle over the supreme court is so important. If W gets his way and Judge Alito is allowed to join with Roberts, Thomas & Scalia we will be only one slim vote from seeing all kinds protections disappear. For the sake of this discussion, I'll limit this to games, but it still applies to other things as well.

I disagree with this completely.

For the record: I am about as anti-censorship as you can get. I'm a Libertarian, and when this was first debated I said the law would be called unconstitutional, and rightfully so.

The thing i take issue with is the misinformed view that conservative judges are somehow anti-speech. While you will often see Republicans and Conservatives complain and rail against violence and sex in various forms of media. It is only liberals and Democrats who really attempt to pass legislation banning such things. The Illinois law was written by Liberal Democrats. The most vocal proponant of videogame legislation is Democrat Joe Lieberman, and it's prospective Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton who plans on introducing federal legislation banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

Remember: What seperates the parties is this.

Conservative: Favours limited government legislation, and more individual rights. IE: Smaller Government, and much more personal freedom.

Liberal: Favours larger government due to a belief that our system is patently unfair to the lower/working classes, minoritys, and other groups. Also believes in the concept that Government can and SHOULD intervene to solve problems. IE: Government should regulate pretty much everything. A good example is Europe, where speech and videogames are TIGHTLY regulated. With many banned games.

Now with all this established: While i'm not exactly a Bush fan, i will happily take my chances with a TRUE Conservative justice as opposed to a liberal one. I read a lot of Alito's past decisions, and i do think he is a perfect choice and would have also found this Illinois law unconstitutional.

One other way of getting into their heads and seeing how they think is the Eminent Domain decision. The Liberal justices voted in favour of a local government being able to condemn middle class housing, take the property from the owners, and give them to rich developers to build condominiums for millionaires. IE: More Property Tax Revenue. Conservatives felt the complete opposite. IE: Personal Freedom over Government Power.

About the only thing Bush has done that is worthwhile, is his supreme court picks. Sorry if this is off-topic, but since a case like this will probably find it's way to the Supreme Court this decade - It's relavent to an extent.

[Tanis178]

i think DP needs a ethics/morale issues/legislation forum :eek 2:

[Xizer]

i think DP needs a ethics/morale issues/legislation forum :eek 2:

With the amount of crap going on in the world today, and involving video games, this wouldn't be a bad idea.

[ty896]

Remember: What seperates the parties is this.

Conservative: Favours limited government legislation, and more individual rights. IE: Smaller Government, and much more personal freedom.

This may have been a fair definition of conservatives 20 or 30 years ago, but the "neo-cons & christian fundementalists" that control the party today are passing the largest budgets ever, creating new entitlements & shoving 'Intelligent Design' down all of our throats.

And yes, I know we are at war, but I'll be damned if the 'Patriot Act' isn't most blatently Orwellian law I have ever seen. Although to be fair, it may be that it just bugs me; that every time someone justifies the PA with the argument "there is nothing here that doesn't already apply to drug dealers"; that nobody seems willing to point out that the Jihad on Drugs has been the one assult on our freedoms after another.

I will agree with you on the eminent domain case, the libs let us down. But as for protecting the 1st admendment, give me Ruth Ginsberg (and her long standing ties to the ACLU) anytime.

[Mangar]

This may have been a fair definition of conservatives 20 or 30 years ago, but the "neo-cons & christian fundementalists" that control the party today are passing the largest budgets ever, creating new entitlements & shoving 'Intelligent Design' down all of our throats.


I agree.

However: Bush's judicial picks are not Neo-Cons or Christian Fundementalists. They are strict old-school Conservatives, in the same vein as the traditional Conservative. His picks for the supreme court are about the only thing i can honestly say that i support Bush 100% on. They are suprisingly good picks. (Albeit Alito only was chosen because his first choice got laughed out of contention)

Ginsberg - Well you acknowledged that she failed on Eminent Domain. I'd suggest that you look up some of her earlier writings and views in regards to government and it's role regarding speech and censorship. She scares me, because quite frankly - Based SOLELY on her past writings and views, my guess is that she would have upheld the Illinois law. This is opinion, but one based on research and familiariity. I'm with you on drug law and such, but when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Conservatives simply have a much better judicial and legislative record.

[kevin_psx]

Okay. Good. Fair. Does porn in Playboy Mansion have artistic merit? Not really. Shouldn't it be treated the same as I Dream of Jenna - banned from minors? Porn in Playboy: The Mansion does have artistic merit, considering games are an art form.

Then porn videos like I Dream of Jenna has artistic merit too - not banned from minors buying it. Agree?

[kevin_psx]

It is only liberals and Democrats who really attempt to pass legislation banning such things. The Illinois law was written by Liberal Democrats. The most vocal proponant of videogame legislation is Democrat Joe Lieberman, and it's prospective Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton who plans on introducing federal legislation banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

Nice irony. Liberals claim to support free expression - they are the ones writing laws to ban it.

LOL

[Xizer]

Then porn videos like I Dream of Jenna has artistic merit too - not banned from minors buying it. Agree?

I agree. I Dream of Jenna DOES have artistic merit. Porn shouldn't be banned from minors, either. What this country needs is something called parental responsibility. Instead we have crack whore mommy who is too busy waiting for the welfare check so she can buy some more drugs while her kid Johnny goes and steals a PS2 and manages to get scrape up enough money for Grand Theft Auto.