Judge strikes WA video game sales law
In May 2003 Balasubramania posted regarding violent video game legislation enacted in Washington state that prohibits knowingly furnishing videogames containing violence towards law enforcement officers to minors.
Subsequently, in June 2003, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision from EDMO that concluded video games are not a protected form of speech under the First Amendment and held that they are in fact protected by the first amendment. See Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. June 3, 2003) (Vice City protected by First Amendment); see also American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001) (video games are a form of speech). Judge Arnold, writing for the Court, stated that "If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection."
District Judge Robert Lasnik struck down the Washington state law, designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors, saying that such restrictions violated free speech rights. "Given the fact that rights of free expression are at stake, the Court finds that the Act is unconstitutionally vague," stated Judge Lasnik in his summary judgment. The matter is Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Maleng, ([WDWA 2004). The challenge was brought by Interactive Digital Software Association who was also involved in the 8th Circuit Action. See also: Seattle PI article.
Subsequently, in June 2003, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision from EDMO that concluded video games are not a protected form of speech under the First Amendment and held that they are in fact protected by the first amendment. See Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. June 3, 2003) (Vice City protected by First Amendment); see also American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001) (video games are a form of speech). Judge Arnold, writing for the Court, stated that "If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection."
District Judge Robert Lasnik struck down the Washington state law, designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors, saying that such restrictions violated free speech rights. "Given the fact that rights of free expression are at stake, the Court finds that the Act is unconstitutionally vague," stated Judge Lasnik in his summary judgment. The matter is Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Maleng, ([WDWA 2004). The challenge was brought by Interactive Digital Software Association who was also involved in the 8th Circuit Action. See also: Seattle PI article.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment