RSSMichigan Video Game Law Shot Down
By Ed Oswald | Published April 4, 2006, 11:31 AM
A Michigan law aimed at restricting the sale of violent video games was struck down on First Amendment grounds Friday. The ruling follows a similar pattern by judges to side with game manufacturers and gamers, citing that freedom of expression prohibits such laws.
The law was originally blocked from taking effect in November through a temporary injunction. The legislation was signed into law by Governor Jennifer Granholm and was supposed to be enforced beginning December 1.
It would have made the sale of violent video games to minors illegal, and imposed fines of up to $40,000 and three months jail time for those who sell the games, or pose as a parent or guardian to purchase a game for a minor.
"The notion that video games are protected free speech under the First Amendment is becoming widely adopted in Circuit Courts around the United States," U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh wrote in his decision. "Video games are a form of creative expression that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment."
Similar laws in Washington, Illinois and California have all been ruled unconstitutional, and it's likely that a federal law now making its way through Congress would meet a similar fate.
In each case, judges have cited the lack of hard evidence that violent games beget violent behavior as the reason for erring on the side of free speech. Supporters of the law realize this, and it may be why Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Leiberman late last year successfully pressed for a Senate investigation into the effects of such games.
If Clinton and Leiberman do find that there is a correlation between the two, then and only then will the sale of such games be illegal to minors.
The way in which most statistics can be misconstrued, it will be a law to watch.
Score: 0
|It's just congressional noise. They know that the laws would be illegal, so they pass them. Hillary, et al, are just simply looking to be popular, keep their job, and act like they're helping your kids and assisting your parenting. In reality, they're attempting to dissolve personal rights, responsibilities, and your role as sole protector of your kids.
This stuff has been happening for a long time. Bless senators and congressmen... how many any-gay, anti-sodomy, anti-whatever laws are on the books? They don't stand up in court, ever, but lawmakers get a gold star and more votes.
Hopefully in this case, however, Hillary builds more resentment than support.
Score: 0
|Let me get this straight. My child can't buy good old porn because he might get confused and want to to try something with little Susie next door. Stopping him seeing R or NC-17 movies of course is not a violation of his First Admendment rights, but not allowing him to buy DOOM 3 or GTA: San Adreas with an insanely violent atmosphere (and in some cases sexual) is violation of his right to express himself. Huh? Yes, can somebody really explain the difference. Don't mind me but, choose one or the other as the standard and let it be. As a society we limit the rights of children to express themselves everyday.
So getting back to relationship of film to interpreting this idea, does this mean if a child wants to see a R rated movie he should be allowed to because we shall not limit his/here ability to express themselves?
More over, hard data exists for both sexual content and violence as being attributed to developing the social/world boundaries for youth. This is contrary to the judges statements that there is no such real evidence in play. I want my citizens to begin their desenitization process after their 18, thank you very much. :) Listen I am not saying you should not allow sales to someone under 18, but the same rules as going to a R rated movie should apply, i.e. only purchased when accompanied by a real parent and not some pimple-faced friend's older brother who has just turned 18. Some safeguards should held up to protect society. If you do not want safeguards at least make the rules universal across all lines of entertainment and let my son go see a good old family "R" rated overly-violent and sex-filled movie without my approval or other true guardian. (I am sure some smart lawyer is thinking how can we start applying these rulings to the regulation of the movie industry)
Score: 0
|The question isn't can your kid watch these movies... the question is if it's legal to sell them on a shelf.
It's legal for Wal*Mart to put R rated movies on a shelf to sell them. Therefore it should be legal to do so with "R rated" games.
I think you've hit it on the head though. All of us rational people want video games and movies rated the same way, and restricted the same way. Personally, I think movies are regulated strongly and enforced lightly, and the enforcement goes the way political winds blow; more for that month that a public official tyrades about indecency. So be it.
So let's compromise with a rule set we already generally feel comfortable with. What works for movies works for games.
Score: 0
|The reason why no one has commented on this, is because we are all in agreement with you.
The politicians are grand standing. They want to make some noise because they can, especially about the part about first amendment..
Yes, its is a vioilation to buy whatever we want, that's why they shot the law down.
I am glad to see there are some that see this is asinine.
Score: 0
|* It's legal for Wal*Mart to put R rated movies on a shelf to sell them. Therefore it should be legal to do so with "R rated" games.*
Good point.
Movies and Games should follow the same guidelines. That's true. I will agree with that. If you can get ADULTS to decide what they can AND cannot bear to see on the store shelf, then the same goes with Games. This of course will NEVER go over well..
Unless of course you are some psycho religious group and you have a problem with Harry Potter, but that's whole 'nother matter.
Score: 0
|