Oklahoma violent game law overturned

by Kyle Orland { Sep 17th 2007 at 11:45PM }

A federal judge today handed down an opinion (PDF link) putting a stop to an Oklahoma law that created a $1,000 fine for disseminating violent games to minors. Oklahoma now joins California, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Washington in the list of states that have had such laws have been overturned by the U.S. courts.

Besides reaffirming the oft-stated judicial opinion that games are a form of speech protected by the first amendment, U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron included some harsh words for the defense in her opinion. "Beyond Defendants' generalized statements, there is a complete dearth of legislative findings, scientific studies, or other rationale in the record to support the passage of the Act," the opinion reads in part. "Defendants' argument that 'common sense' dictates that playing violent video games 'is not good for children,' and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, completely fails." Ouch! This wasn't just a win for the game industry, it was a rout.

Of course, Oklahoma could follow California's lead and appeal the ruling, but given the strong language in this opinion, we really think Oklahoma should cut their losses and just stop wasting the taxpayers' money.

Read - GamePolitics report
Read - Law of the Game analysis
PDF - Full text of the legal opinion

Tags: law, legal, oklahoma, overturned, unconstituional

Related From Joystiq

LGJ: Wait, it's not a derivative?
11 days ago
Hands-on: Again
25 days ago
Metareview: Darksiders (Xbox 360, PS3)
28 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Defenestrator2.0 @ Sep 17th 2007 11:51PM

Pow! Right in the kisser!

NATO_Duke @ Sep 18th 2007 10:07AM

I love “whether the Court believe[s] the advent of violent video games adds anything of value to society is irrelevant,” because they are just as entitled to First Amendment protection as is the finest literature." Suck it Jack Thompson!

No really, the court said suck it in there, it’s in the margins.

Its funny, the Courts have to use strict scrutiny for this - basically this test is hardly met by the government in any situation. They have to show a compelling interest coupled with the regulating act being necessary / narrowly tailored. So if there is any other way to meet their interest, then the law fails. That’s why you pretty much expect a loss for the side that has to meet strict scrutiny. Yet here the Court didn't even find a compelling interest, which is the easier part of the test. That’s a pretty clear message that these laws have no legitimacy.

Besides, now that other federal courts have ruled on this, the precedent will ripple across the country unless the Supreme Court chimes in - I wouldn't expect that to happen. Though I would love to read a Scalia opinion on it.

lessbiasedthanmost @ Sep 17th 2007 11:51PM

Hooray for stupid laws getting repealed!

Now if only we can get the supreme court to "read" the patriot act we might be fine in the US
/sarcasm

But seriously, how did any of these states think that a law that fines people for selling "violent games" to minors would work? Almost all games are violent to some degree.

vidGuy @ Sep 18th 2007 12:37AM

Exactly. The problem with most of them is they are too vague - just saying 'violent' games isn't enough. The law MUST give explicit details on what it covers and what is excluded.

Untamed @ Sep 17th 2007 11:51PM

What's with the italics?

pha7e @ Sep 17th 2007 11:55PM

Someone forgot to close off the italics tag.

lessbiasedthanmost @ Sep 17th 2007 11:55PM

It's the next-gen of the written word, get used to it. Ordinary writing is last-gen.

Defenestrator2.0 @ Sep 18th 2007 12:00AM

No clue. It's happening with me for all of Joystiq.

Untamed @ Sep 18th 2007 12:20AM

I blame Kyle Orland!

Brandon Johnson @ Sep 18th 2007 12:01AM

One could hope that lawmakers would start to learn from all these overturned laws I have a feeling we will continue to see more through 2008.

Joshua @ Sep 18th 2007 12:02AM

"Defendants' argument that 'common sense' dictates that playing violent video games 'is not good for children,' and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, COMPLETELY FAILS."

This judge is made of win.

jorojoserojas @ Sep 18th 2007 1:16AM

This court rules that the defendants have been pwned.

shaoron @ Sep 18th 2007 12:22AM

quote---
"Defendants' argument that 'common sense' dictates that playing violent video games 'is not good for children,' and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, completely fails."
----

completely "FAILS"!?
is it just me or is the judge a proud member of the "intarwebz"?

DaMan09 @ Sep 18th 2007 12:23AM

Is it just me, or is the entire site now italicized?

vidGuy @ Sep 18th 2007 12:25AM

It's an unclosed italics tag and it happens about once a week around here. Silly bloggers!

vidGuy @ Sep 18th 2007 12:24AM

It's funny, really. All of these politicians and lawyers passing bills that at the heart are unconstitutional. I've said it many times: until studies scientifically PROVE that violent media causes violence, the government HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT to pass laws governing them. Period. EVERY bill will either fail or be successfully challenged until there is substantial evidence provided by the lawmakers that video games are 'bad'.

Phillip @ Sep 18th 2007 12:44AM

Violence is _not_ good for children and never will be.

Furthermore, when the rating specifically states that that game is for people ages 17 and up, why the crap do you find it so terrible to fine stores that sell those things to minors?

Do you think it should be perfectly legal to sell beer, porn, and cigarettes to minors too?

blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 18th 2007 12:48AM

i watched die hard and stuff when i was like 5 years old and I'm fine. it's all about putting things in context, and good parenting. You can play violent games every once in a while, just don't do it all the time

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Sep 18th 2007 1:07AM

Last time I checked, alcohol, and dirt sticks can disrupt a family and or kill (and are NOT considered free speech), violent videogames cannot kill.

"Violence is _not_ good for children and never will be"

Teaching kids that for every descision they make there will be a consequence, some good, some bad. If you are a good parent your kids will have no problem playing M-rated games because they will know the difference between make believe and real life.
If anything, playing these types of games can be a positive, constuctive release for aggression with no negative consequences. Instead, your child will have faster response times, quicker and better dicision making, and will be able to deal with frustration and have better problem solving skills. Your child will also be able to recognize what they are seeing and react to it quicker than a child that does not play games.
Video Games are and should be a indispensible teaching tool for every parent. You can expose them to many different things and situations that you would never do for real.

"Do you think it should be perfectly legal to sell beer, porn, and cigarettes to minors too?"

Do you think it's ok that there are 100K+ kids in the US out there who dont have a home, who dont have clean clothes, who dont have enough to eat, who are physically, mentally, and sexually abused?

Why are these not infinitley MORE important issues for the parent groups, the politicians?

As long as there is ONE child out there that does not have even the most basic of his/her needs met, I could care less about Johnny playing GTA.

For those of you who say we must protect the children?
GO TO A SHELTER AND HELP IN WHATEVER WAY YOU CAN FOR THOSE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF KIDS WHO HAVE NOTHING.

Rubang B (NDF - Heart) @ Sep 18th 2007 2:35AM

Hell yeah Zaphod. That's what I'm talking about.

But then this BEGS the question, how do you feel about our space program?

vidGuy @ Sep 18th 2007 10:03AM

I don't have a problem with them keeping violent games out of kids hands. I have a problem with fining store clerks for something that is out of their control and creating a situation which censors a form of media. The fact is the government currently has NO legal interest in passing such laws.

Let me give an example:

There are laws governing the sale of beer, porn, cigarettes, etc because they have been shown to have an adverse effect on the consumer and are thus intended only for adults who can rationally decide if they want to consume the products or not. Minors cannot give consent for such things under the rule of law.

There weren't seat belt laws until statistics proved that seat belts can save lives, which is in the interest of the government. All of these situations are legally okay for the government to regulate.

Now take a crazy example. Say some activists decided that watching an episode of Walker Texas Ranger every day made viewers round-house kick strangers on the street. Well, it's causing violence right? But until it is proven to be a danger to society, the government has no right to regulate the viewing of WTR. The government has to have a proven legal interest (protecting citizens and their rights) for such a law to be passed.

So it's not about protecting the children, it's about protecting the rights of the U.S. Constitution. Unless you want the government to be able to pass any wacky law they want?

Phillip @ Sep 18th 2007 11:08AM

@VidGuy:

How is it "out of the hands" of clerks to not sell their games to minors. If the law fines clerks for selling to adults who then give the games to minors, then yes that's stupid. And maybe that is what the law means and I am misunderstanding.

As for censoring, minors aren't (supposed to be) allowed to see R rated movies without parental consent. There are many movies given an R rating for violence, so someone out there realizes that violence is not good for children.

I don't think that means that parents shouldn't be able to override that decision though. Personally, I don't think that I would mind my 14 or 15 year old playing Halo and the government should not override parental authority. That would be censorship. But I wouldn't let me 14 year old play something like Soldier of Fortune and I expect store clerks to not sell a mature title to a minor. If they do, they should be fined.

@Zaphod:

I'm not saying that this is the most pressing issue on earth, but that doesn't mean it should not be addressed.

Ryan LN @ Sep 18th 2007 3:04PM

Violence is not good for children? Where the hell did you grow up? I don't know about you, but I seem to recall playing games on the playground that had tons of violent themes and undertones. I may be dating myself, but we used to play the Dukes of Hazzard where we'd pretend to blow shit up with arrows attached to dynamite, the A Team (I was always B.A. Barackus) where we'd blow up more shit up with dynamite, Star Wars, pro wrestling, king of the mountain and smear the queer (no disrespect intended to my queer friends) where we'd routinely beat the crap out of each other and/or pretend to kill each other. While no one would ever argue that beating children out of anger or hazing is a good thing, violent play (what do you think dodge ball is) is a part of childhood, has always been a part of childhood, will always be a part of childhood, and can be a fun, normal part of childhood. While one can draw a distinction between pretending to kill someone with a stick that looks like a gun and sawing a man from stem to stern with a chainsaw attached to a machine gun, the fact remains that in the imaginations of the child both instances are equally pretend. I am also reasonably certain that neither Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy never played Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt 2 and they did fine turning out to be total fucknuts all by themselves. Perhaps it was comic books.

Phillip @ Sep 18th 2007 3:19PM

*sigh*

Yes, Ryan. I played "violent" games too. I used to play cowboys and indians... sheesh, I played dodgeball! I guess I should clarify my statement: I don't think violence in general is bad for children. I think that gratuitous, gross gore/dismemberment/etc. found in R rated movies and M rated games is unhealthy for children. That's why they are rated what they are rated.

Ryan LN @ Sep 18th 2007 4:02PM

And I probably agree with you- one of my friends who I regularly play Gears with lets his four year old take the controls sometimes, and I find that a bit disconcerting- hell, I won't even play Gears with either my five or two year old in the room. Where I don't agree with you is that it is the role of the government to determine what type of non-pornographic material is harmful to my child, and I absolutely do not trust their ability to draft competent, constitutional legislation that doesn't lead down the slippery slope of unnecessary censorship. The ratings are guides for parents, and as another contributor mentioned above you, you don't find similar legislation in place to punish those who rent R rated movies or sell R rated movie tickets to children.

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Sep 18th 2007 5:58PM

"I guess I should clarify my statement: I don't think violence in general is bad for children. I think that gratuitous, gross gore/dismemberment/etc. found in R rated movies and M rated games is unhealthy for children."

Then why do we expose kids to the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavad Gita and so on. These books are overflowing in violence, murder, genocide, incest, torture, rape I could go on and on, yet the vast majority of parents on this planet poor these books down a poor naive helpless childs throat.

Phillip @ Sep 18th 2007 6:16PM

Reading about violence is very different from seeing it portrayed on a screen. I'll use the Lord of the Rings as just one example of this.

RT @ Sep 18th 2007 12:49AM

Always wanted to see myself italicized.

KsE 79 @ Sep 18th 2007 12:49AM

I disagree with the ruling. I am for the first amendment, but fail to see why a law shouldnt be in place to help keep Mature games out of minors' hands. Why shouldnt their be a fine? It would help deter stores from selling to minors. That is the point. There is nothing wrong with that and nothing that goes against our constitution. To me, that is the common sense. Just like kids shouldnt be allowed to go into R rated movies. If their parents want to not have common sense and buy the games for the kids then fine, let them be stupid. But otherwise, the law should be there to aide in keeping them away from kids. How is that hard to understand and accept?

debaser @ Sep 18th 2007 1:03AM

The reason is that there is no law that fines movie theater employees for letting kids see R-rated movies.

The movie industry is self-regulated, and so is the gaming industry. Politicians, for some reason, fail to notice that they're harder on video games than television or movies, and for no reason than that it's a new form of media.

Bluebrake @ Sep 18th 2007 1:09AM

The point is that passing a law restricting free speech (which, yes, is against your constitution) is a hell of a big step to take for anything short of saving lives. Doing it just to "help deter" something as innocuous as selling violent video games is a massive overreaction and an inappropriate use of power. Without solid evidence (or any evidence, really) that violent video games are harmful to minors, there is no justification for having the government enforce a parental responsibility. Parents and the industry are perfectly capable of handling this issue on their own. Why restrict people's rights when you don't have to?

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Sep 18th 2007 1:11AM

see my reply to Phillip, priorities asshole. Stamp out REAL suffering and then you can bitch.

pockyninja @ Sep 18th 2007 5:39AM

If there is a fine to stores who sell these games to kids, then there should be a fine to parents who knowingly let their kids play them.

It's really all too vague. Any parent can buy a game, give it to their kid, then come back to the store the next week all "YOU SOLD MAH BAYBEES GRAND THEFT AUTO IMMA SUE YOU NOW LAWLZ!!!"
Stuff like this already happens like five effing times a week at my store. We don't need to give idiots another shot at "free" money.

Ryan LN @ Sep 18th 2007 3:16PM

Because the problem with that sort of law is that it is a content based restriction, and the problem with content based restrictions is this simple: who gets to decide which content is acceptable, and which content is too violent? Child porn is easy, and yes, it's pretty hard to defend Manhunt 2 and games that seem to glorify violence and murder, but there are those out there who would suggest that the act of having Mario stomp on a Goomba or Pac Man eating a ghosts are too violent and encourage violence. If we are stupid enough to unwittingly elect some of those morons to our congresses and senates, do they get to decide? Additionally, what if someone suggest that violent video games aren't good for anyone, as they encourage violence in general and lead to the degredation of society? What then? Are we all gonna play Uno on Xbox Live through all eternity? Perhaps there would be some merit in having the state step in and exercise a little parental authority in the vacuum vacated by some idiot parents- but that step would be the first in a series of other steps that a whole bunch of us would ultimately find objectionable.

KsE 79 @ Sep 18th 2007 12:51AM

blooh, you must be so proud of your parents. I wonder what else you were allowed to do and watch at a young age.

blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 18th 2007 12:56AM

rape urmom

ow, my head's hurting again from being angry

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Sep 18th 2007 1:14AM

see my reply to Phillip. Would you rather keep your kids in a plastic bubble? What will you do when they learn about those things from someone else besides you?
They will be exposed to them, and they will learn about them from someone, would you not want that someone to be YOU?

Cuja @ Sep 18th 2007 1:08AM

KsE 79. You ever watch the movie Minority Report where they convict people before the crime happens. If you let lawmakers goes as they please, we all would have record. Laws only keep ordinary Joes in line, while common criminals goes as they please. The laws need to be made to take a bite out real crime.

LaughingTarget @ Sep 18th 2007 1:48AM

No one bothered to tell Oklahoma that "common sense" means you're really an individual that is ignorant of the world. The word originated when European nobles scoffed at the commoners as they held strange beliefs. Witches, black magic, curses, etc. They merely have the sense of a commoner, they don't know any better.

Common sense is, unfortunately, all too common.

blooh (CDF - Ass Ring) @ Sep 18th 2007 2:31AM

it doesnt matter what a word's meaning was 500 years ago, what matters is our current application of the word

Rubang B (NDF - Heart) @ Sep 18th 2007 2:40AM

He's right though. You ever notice how whenever anybody says "well common sense dictates that blah blah blah" they're mysteriously some crazy lying asshole trying to take away your freedom? Am I supposed to go "Oh snap he questioned my 'sense' so I have to agree because disagreeing with him means I'm agreeing that I'm nonsensical!" ?? It's almost like a loaded question.

Hey do you still rape your kids?

nindustrial @ Sep 18th 2007 4:51AM

Certainly a good story, but I would like to point out that "cutting their losses" and not appealing because of "strong language" in the opinion really has no bearing on whether an appeal would succeed. Lower court opinions are not controlling for courts above, so it doesn't matter how strong the language of the opinion is.

dbeech @ Sep 18th 2007 6:29AM

Some of these cases are so stupid one can't help but feel that the only reason they exist is to make sure lawyers don't go poor.

Jeff Holland @ Sep 18th 2007 6:39AM

Heck yes! Take that Jack! Free speech ftw

Paul G @ Sep 18th 2007 7:29AM

I'm from the UK, so can someone explain to me how selling a game to a person who shouldn't have it constitutes free speech? Is this the free speech of the child, or the person selling the game...or neither :S

Richard Mitchell @ Sep 18th 2007 9:25AM

Legally, if I'm not mistaken, the free speech actually refers to the makers of the game. By using law -- instead of voluntary self-regulation -- to limit its sale, you are restricting the speech of those who created the game.

Paul G @ Sep 18th 2007 10:02AM

Right, i understand more now. It still seems a little odd though. No argument here that videogames are a form of free speech, nor that it should be protected, but it seems a little too like principle coming ahead of practice. In practice, it shouldn't matter because there shouldn't BE any minors being 'spoken' to. I imagine some see it as the beginnings of a slippery slope but really, if the game is designed for a certain age and above, why quibble when a law is proposed punishing those who flout that design and sell it to underage kids?