Professor Violence: Supreme Court Judges 'Factually Incorrect' on Video Game Ruling

So, the US Supreme Court judges made factual errors when it came to its ruling on the Californian law that wanted to ban the sale of 'violent' video games to children. That's according to one expert, and we say 'expert' because that's polite.

Professor Craig Anderson, "distinguished professor of psychology and director of Iowa State University's Center for the Study of Violence" has released a statemenet.

The IowaStateDaily reports that, the prof, "has contributed extensively to a large body of research showing a definitive link between exposure to violent media and aggressive behaviour. Though he has served as an expert witness in similar cases, he did not take part in this one."

He did contribute a summary statement of other people (and his own) research however. He contributed this "we allowed that to appear in the appendix of one of the amicus briefs that was filed by the California state senator who originally proposed the law."

So, not a teeny bit biased?

What does he think of the Supreme Court judges? "I'm disappointed by the fact that several of the judges chose to attack the research evidence and chose to make statements that are clearly factually incorrect."

A new form of 'Factually' is now in existence. It apparently means "in disagreement with me".

Anderson, who works with the always fun, Doug Gentile, continues, "Here's what the science says. Here's what the science doesn't say. Use this as you're supposed to use it, but I can't make them use it. They can misuse it and they will. It's very frustrating."

The prof of violence is also apparently a judicial whizzkid, "I firmly come down right in the middle," Anderson said. "It wasn't a well-written law, and I've always been a free speech proponent, but on the other hand, I don't think free speech should apply the same way to children as it applies to adults, because we hold that they are vulnerable. As a society we've made that decision."

More over here.