
It's
Auld Lang Syne for 2006, and many sites are publishing their choices for the year's top games.
But here at
GamePolitics, our year-end review
focuses instead on the people and events that made 2006 a fascinating, yet troubling time to be a gamer.
Who was most influential in 2006?
At least
one major site named outgoing ESA boss Doug Lowenstein. Understandable as a sentimental choice, but not our selection...
ESRB head Patricia Vance finished the year strong, announcing a key partnership with two longtime Senate critics - Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman - in December. But, Vance had some rocky times in '06 as well. Overall, we felt there were more deserving candidates.
Nor is
GamePolitics averse to honoring an industry foe. Readers may recall that California Assemblyman Leland Yee - architect of that state's contested video game law - was our
2005 Person of the Year.
But there is no such deserving opponent this time around. And thus,
GamePolitics' 2006 Person of the Year should actually be called "people" of the year -
Judges. More than any individual, judges collectively shaped the political landscape of gaming in 2006.
How so?
The last twelve months were a time in which video games came under attack from many quarters. State legislatures in Louisiana, Minnesota and Oklahoma passed restrictive video game legislation. Governors in those states signed those bills into law.
In Miami, a video game was accused of being a public nuisance, a term normally reserved for environmental issues. In Illinois, a governor dragged his feet on repaying legal fees owed to the video game industry thanks to the state's unconstitutional 2005 video game law.
Each of these cases required a members of the judiciary to put things right.
In Louisiana, U.S. District Court Judge James Brady disposed of an unconstitutional video game law written by activist attorney Jack Thompson. Brady
wrote:
As the Supreme Court has noted, "First Amendment Freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or justify its laws for that impermissible end."
In Minnesota, U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum got hands-on with video game issues, playing
Jade Empire on his court clerk's Xbox before deciding that the state's bizarre "fine the buyer" law was unconstitutional. In his
decision, Rosenbaum concluded:
The State itself acknowledges... that it is entirely incapable of showing a causal link between the playing of video games and any deleterious effect on the psychological, moral, or ethical well-being of minors.
But not all of the judges who influenced the politics of video games in 2006 were from the federal bench. In Florida, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman presided over Jack Thompson's attempt to have Rockstar's Bully declared a public nuisance.
Although Friedman initially acceeded to Thompson's motion to force Take-Two to produce the as-yet unpublished game for his review (a rather chilling development which Thompson proclaimed as a
huge victory), Judge Friedman ultimately ruled the game was not a nuisance, saying:
There’s a lot of violence. A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night. Does that mean I would want my children to view it? No. But does it rise to a point that its a nuisance? The answer is no from what I saw.
Caught in the circus atmosphere surrounding the
Bully case, Friedman endured quite a lot, including Thompson's rather dubious announcement that he would be
running for the judge's seat on the bench in 2008.
In Oklahoma, U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron issued a preliminary injunction blocking that state's video game law from taking effect.
And in Illinois, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly was blunt with Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Saying "the time for waffling has passed," Kennelly ordered the Guv to reimburse the video game industry more than a half-million dollars in legal fees based on Blagojevich's unconstitutional Safe Games Illinois Act.
GP: In case you are wondering, the jurists depicted are (clockwise, from top left): Robin Cauthron, James Brady, James Rosenbaum, and Ronald Friedman.
Comments
These people deserve our respect. They have a tough and sometimes boring job.
@Gamer81
Like time, I think GP picks them based on who he feels made the biggest impact. For better or for worse. This year Judges did more for the industry than any other group. Last year Yee, forced some reactions that are still rippling through the industry.
Hillary Clinton and her "It takes a village" argument is all for the government having a hand in how children are raised, including what kind of content is exposed to them, and taking away the rights of a parent to raise their child as they see fit. Her motivations are not religious, they are "progressive."
Politicians and public figures are going to latch on to whatever group they can for support. Doing so does not mean that they represent those groups, just that they are trying to show a common ground that they can both stand upon. Instead of painting blame in such broad strokes, why not focus on the individuals who are fighting against freedom of expression?
And the best thing about the judges who have struck down these laws is that they are sticking to the constitution instead of trying to legislate from the bench. It is when the constitution is looked upon as "a living, breathing document" that bad laws are allowed to exist because of the reasoning that society's views change over time. When the constitution states "Congress shall make no law" then it means exactly that, not subject to "modern interpretation", quibbling over the meaning of is, or no, or shall. We need our judges to follow the constitution. Doing so benefits everyone.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that many older people (of which at least a few judges are) are too stubborn to accept anything new and different, and are ready to condemn all such things all too happily. I guess this shows what intelligence, wisdom, education, and general respect for the law and the Constitution can really accomplish.
So KUDOS to all the great judges our country has! Buy them all a beer, and let them get back to work!
I haven't forgotten Get Well Gamers at all. In fact, I'm not sure if he's forgotten, but I've offered him free advertising at GamerDad during the Holidays if he could just find someone to make a banner ad for him.
Anyway, hai2u hdg..
we can only hope there are judges like this in Europe.
In the UK, Vaz doesn't really stand a chance, I honestly think he picked video games because he saw a bandwagon that no other politician was bothering to jump on, possibly all their 'fried frontal lobes' are still capable of remember the 50's and 60's, whereas, oddly enough Vaz seems oblivious to them. The BBC actually gives out awards to the greatest yearly achievements in the Video, Music and Computer Games industry, that's how firmly it's been entrenched now as part of the culture.
Anyway, the judges in Europe are, if anything, more extreme about things like this than the ones in the US. They are VERY big on Human Rights, and that includes freedom of expression.
If nothing else, even if that law did get passed in Germany, the European Court would almost certainly consider it a violation of the Human Rights of players and writers. It's not quite the constitution, but the European Bill of Human Rights is a very strong document on its own.
Of course, that's a very important job though. Christians (including Jack Thompson) say all magicians are occultists, they call Harry Houdini a occultist, they call Cyril Takayama a occultist, yeah, everything they call especially video games and movies alike occult.
Can't those religious zealots put down their bibles and have an open mind?
Let's not forget Get Well Gamer. I certainly don't pit one against the other. The more who are out there, the more people can be helped.
I agree with GP. Certainly the most influential people out there have been the judges who have to deal with so many of these issues. Whether they are dealing with the legislation, these ignorant "public nuisance" cases, or the various civil cases (and even a few ignorant criminal cases that try to deflect the issue to video games rather than "someone did something stupid and got caught").
Not to mention that the judges have to deal with the gung-ho politicians who try to misinform them in every way possible about the facts. Whether it be DAs, AGs, or even senators and governors. Too much political grandstanding and not enough facts on the issue make a judge's job difficult, I'm sure.
nightwng2000
NW2K software
GamerDad doesn't do these kinds of picks but my vote would go to PennyArcade. PAX, this year, broke attendence records and was probably the best convention I've ever been to (and I've been to about 100 conventions over the past decade) and Child's Play is nearing, or has reached, $1 million dollars.
More impressively, these are both things Penny-Arcade really doesn't need to do to make money or an impact. Child's Play is now international!
In short, it looks to me like a grassroots vulgar webcomic has had an inordinately strong and positive impact on the game business and how it's perceived in the industry.