California Judge: Games No More Harmful Than Film
Sale restrictions unconstitutional
He'll probably be back... dammit.
A Californian federal district court judge has overturned legislation banning the sale and rental of violent games to minors, stating that violent games are no more harmful to children than other media.
In his ruling on the case, Judge Ronald Whyte said:
Because “the required nexus” was not established between games and harm to minors, the law was deemed to be in violation of the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which protects freedom of speech.
The law in question (California Civil Code §§ 1746-1746.5) was passed on October 7th 2005 under the guidance of the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then-Assembley Speaker, Leland Yee. The games industry – specifically the Video Software Dealers Association (now merged into Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) – filed suit to block the law ten days later.
Judge Whyte issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law coming into effect on January 1st 2006 as was initially planned, and has only now delivered his final ruling.
While the ruling only applies to the state of California, it sends a powerful message to the anti-games lobby. Currently the New York Senate is looking at a similar Bill and will no doubt look to Judge Whyte's ruling when making its decision.
The ruling, coming from a judge of seniority, will also prove a blow to the rhetoric used by the likes of anti-games crusader Jack Thompson, undermining the credibility of their claims that the interactivity of games makes them more dangerous to minors than other media.
SPOnG dearly hopes that when Rockstar's appeal of the Manhunt 2 ban is heard it is met with the same open-mindedness towards our medium as has been seen here.
Source: GamePolitics
In his ruling on the case, Judge Ronald Whyte said:
“The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures.
“Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.
“The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act.”
“Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.
“The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act.”
Because “the required nexus” was not established between games and harm to minors, the law was deemed to be in violation of the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which protects freedom of speech.
The law in question (California Civil Code §§ 1746-1746.5) was passed on October 7th 2005 under the guidance of the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then-Assembley Speaker, Leland Yee. The games industry – specifically the Video Software Dealers Association (now merged into Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) – filed suit to block the law ten days later.
Judge Whyte issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law coming into effect on January 1st 2006 as was initially planned, and has only now delivered his final ruling.
While the ruling only applies to the state of California, it sends a powerful message to the anti-games lobby. Currently the New York Senate is looking at a similar Bill and will no doubt look to Judge Whyte's ruling when making its decision.
The ruling, coming from a judge of seniority, will also prove a blow to the rhetoric used by the likes of anti-games crusader Jack Thompson, undermining the credibility of their claims that the interactivity of games makes them more dangerous to minors than other media.
SPOnG dearly hopes that when Rockstar's appeal of the Manhunt 2 ban is heard it is met with the same open-mindedness towards our medium as has been seen here.
Source: GamePolitics
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 7 Aug 2007 10:29
1/1
I agree that minors shouldn't be playing GTA etc, but to they'll always be drawn to forbidden fruit. I'm glad this Judge struck this one down, because this kind of bill was clearly biased to a new industry, with no real solid evidence to prove games are any more or less of a threat than film etc. If you ask me, media are all even in that regard.
Its easy for those not of a gaming generation to paint this picture. I still think the games industry should be doing more to educate the masses of non-gamers, about games, their age ratings and such. Stick some educational leaflets in with games sold as standard, and if need be, explain what its is and why they should read it. This way, retailers can cover themselves and help parents and gamers that need that vital information.
Its easy for those not of a gaming generation to paint this picture. I still think the games industry should be doing more to educate the masses of non-gamers, about games, their age ratings and such. Stick some educational leaflets in with games sold as standard, and if need be, explain what its is and why they should read it. This way, retailers can cover themselves and help parents and gamers that need that vital information.