IDSA PRAISES APPEALS COURT RULING ON ST. LOUIS GAME LAW
Two weeks after receiving setback in its battle against series of laws regulating sales of violent videogames when Wash. Gov. Gary Locke (D) signed new bill into law (CED May 22 p3), Interactive Digital Software Assn. (IDSA) found much to be happy about with Tues. ruling by 8th U.S. Appeals Court, St. Louis. IDSA Pres. Douglas Lowenstein called ruling by 3-judge court striking down St. Louis County ordinance that had sought to ban sale of violent videogames to minors “a total and unambiguous affirmation of our position that videogames have the same constitutional status as a painting, a film or a book… The decision sends a powerful signal to government at all levels that efforts to regulate consumers’ access to the creative and expressive content found in videogames will not be tolerated.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Judge Morris Arnold wrote in his decision that “there is no justification for disqualifying videogames as speech simply because they are construed to be interactive” as had been argued by proponents of St. Louis law. He said books -- “such as the preteen-oriented Choose Your Own Nightmare series… can be every bit as interactive as videogames.” He said that in those books, reader “makes choices that determine the plot of the story.”
Arnold also held that videogames -- regardless of their content -- were constitutionally protected speech, writing: “If the First Amendment is versatile enough to ’shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollack, music of Arnold Schoenberg or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll’ [cited in a prior decision], we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories and narrative present in videogames are not entitled to similar protection.”
Judges also found that St. Louis County had failed to establish that there was compelling state interest in regulating sale of games to minors on behalf of parents. Arnold wrote: “We do not mean to denigrate the government’s role in supporting parents, or the right of parents to control their children’s exposure to graphically violent materials. We merely hold that the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority… To accept the County’s broadly drawn interest as a compelling one would be to invite legislatures to undermine the First Amendment rights of minors willy-nilly under the guise of promoting parental authority.”
Decision also dismissed St. Louis County’s claim that violent videogames had to be regulated because they had been proved to be harmful to minors. Arnold wrote that court found much of evidence presented by St. Louis County on that point to be nothing more than “a small number of ambiguous, inconclusive, or irrelevant (conducted on adults, not minors) studies; and the testimony of a high school principal who admittedly had no information regarding any link between violent videogames and psychological harm… The County’s conclusion that there is a strong likelihood that minors who play violent videogames will suffer a deleterious effect on their psychological health is completely unsupported in the record.”
IDSA now is hoping that Appeals Court decision will help put brakes on future laws. Lowenstein said: “We hope that this ruling, coupled with a similar ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals [Chicago] in a case involving an Indianapolis law seeking to restrict the display of violent video arcade games, will give pause to those who would use the power of the state to regulate speech they find objectionable.”
Once again saying FTC had found that parents were involved in purchase and rental of videogames 83% of time, Lowenstein said: “We've said from the start of this case that trying to turn retailers into surrogate parents is the wrong approach. Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money in court, we hope that public officials in St. Louis County and elsewhere will take up our longstanding offer to work cooperatively to ensure that parents use the highly regarded Entertainment Software Rating Board videogame rating system to make informed choices for their families.”
St. Louis County ordinance overturned by Appeals Court originally was passed in 2000. After IDSA’s motion for summary judgment was denied by U.S. Dist. Court, St. Louis, videogame industry trade group and joint plaintiffs including VSDA and Missouri Retailers Assn. filed appeal in 8th Circuit. Decision reversed earlier decision and directed Dist. Court to enter injunction preventing ordinance from going into effect.