Re: [dvd-discuss] Federal Judge Says Videogames Not Speech

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

The ruling seems reasonable...the argumentation less so....I DON"T find 
that video game have more in common with a boardgame or roll playing game 
(I don't remember any grossly gory statements from our DMs when characters 
got ofted.). But that's not the reason for not invoking the FA. Certainly 
as an adult, I enjoy FA rights but minors do not enjoy total rights. 
(e.g., seeing R NC-17 or X rated films). I don't seem much difference 
between watching Friday the 13th and playing the video game. The doctrine 
of In loco parentis (Sp?) is being invoked....there is nothing that says 
that parents can't let their children play all the violent sexual games 
they want - provided they agree and want to personally overrule the state 
in the matter.

Although I'd take Joust over TombRaider anyday!

What is the second ruling?




Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
04/30/02 12:04 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, 
C-FIT_Release_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, 
dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Federal Judge Says Videogames Not Speech



(Forwarded from POLITECH list, declan@well.com.  The judge
appears to overlook the difference wrought by the nature of
digital works, media and logic devices.  -- Seth)


-------- Original Message --------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:07:00 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>


Robert found the text of the opinion, which is here:
http://pacer.moed.uscourts.gov/opinions/INTERACTIVE_DIGITAL_SOFTWARE_ASSOC_V_ST_LOUIS_COUNTY-SNL-36.PDF

Two excerpts:

This Court reviewed four different video games, and found no
conveyance of  ideas, expression, or anything else that
could possibly amount to speech.  The Court finds that video
games have more in common with board games and  sports than
they do with motion pictures... The Court has trouble
seeing  how an ordinary game with no First Amendment
protection, can suddenly  become expressive when technology
is used to present it in "video" form.

The Court finds that plaintiffs failed to meet this burden
of showing that  video games are a protected form of speech
under the First Amendment.  However, even if plaintiffs
could establish that video games are a form of  expression,
their constitutional argument still fails.


<SNIP>

ow the county is trying to figure out what to do next.
Should it
enforce a law that one federal court has ruled
unconstitutional?

<Snip>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------