September 17, 2007
According to the ESA, a federal court judge has issued a permanent injunction against Oklahoma's 2006 video game law.
Here (20-page pdf) is the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron (left).
Mark Methenitis has a legal analysis at the Law of the Game.
Meanwhile, we have reaction from Bo Andersen, president of the Entertainment Merchants Association:
It is fitting that this ruling was issued on Constitution Day... The decision is a ringing affirmation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.
Judge Cauthron’s opinion makes abundantly clear that the Oklahoma legislature overreached in attempting to restrict the distribution of video games containing fantasy violence to minors, in part because there was no evidence that the games are harmful to anyone. The judge also correctly noted that there is no way for an ordinary person to determine which games were covered by the Oklahoma law and which were not.
It is time for lawmakers to stop targeting video games and the retailers that sell them. They should recognize that all video games are rated, retailers are choosing to enforce the ratings in their stores, and the new PlayStation 3, Wii, and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Vista computer operating system all allow parents to control the types of games that can be played on them. These voluntary steps, not government regulation, are true to the spirit of the American Constitution...
Comments
LOL
That little quip made my day
The next thing they'd try to make us prove is that videogames are NOT harmful--which would further reveal their ignorance in regards to science and its proofs. It's bad enough they can't see that studies showing a potential correlation (and just for aggressive play behavior or responses, not even violence) don't equal proof because correlation doesn't equal causation. How uneducated must these poiticians be, really, or are they just so daft, hard-headed, and narrow-minded that they latch onto whatever cause celebre sounds like it will further their voter base?
I'd love for them to have to sit through a basic elementary school-evel briefing on what science is and does and what it can and can't tell us with certainty. Maybe then they would grasp some basic science facts such as that science can't prove a negative, but only contribute evidence supporting it.
Or that a small sample size messes with statistical significance. Or that testing conditions lacking proper controls, proper accounting for other potential contributing factors, and/or demonstration that the behavior or outcomes being studied actually mean what the observers think they mean are utterly useless and far from scientific.
Actually, now that I think about it, politicians shouldhave to pass tests requiring that they show proper understandings of some basic things, like the Constitution for example.
God! What a fat stupid cow. She obviously doesn't know the law from her ass. I'll bet she graduated from fat dyke law school just like Janet Reno. If only this state would've consulted me I probably could've won this case for them (louisana was a total fluke). I'm gonna have to update my list of people I'm about make my bitch now.
People I'm gonna make bitches:
1. The Florida Bar
2. GP
3. gov. Jeb Bush
4. pres. George Bush
5. Judge Robin Cauthron
Anyways, after that, you guys are all invited to my party after I'm made king of florida. Just so you know it's BYOH (bring your own HOOAH!!!).
I'm a lawyer, but not for long,
Jack Thompson
The pure fact that this law would have helped keep allready troubled children from being further influenced by inmoral and violent games.
I do not believe that the thought of depriving WHO the gaming industry can sell DIRECTLY TO (especially a minor who has no proper supervision from a parent that gives no $h1t) is a violation of any constitutional right... More like it is a protective custody of those children that are allready in a fragile state as for their outlook and value of human life.