THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A GOOD THING. And being an Article III (federal, life tenure) judge is a good thing too.

Washington state tried to ban videogames that depicted acts of violence against police. See, e.g., Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, where a player can while away an afternoon beating, shooting, blowing up and setting afire the men in blue who otherwise would be protecting said metropolis from evildoers. The state legislature figured that the tender minds of Washington's youths (again e.g., post-Columbine male teenagers) were being warped by such media.

Judge Lasnik, a federal judge in Seattle, just declared that statute unconstitutional. This kind of judicial language is usually referred to as a "sharp rebuke" of the losing side, here the state:

Defendants acknowledge that the Act does not regulate works that depict sexual conduct. Undaunted by the dear pronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding the limited
scope of materials that are subject to regulation as obscene, defendants argue that the Court should expand the definition of obscenity to include graphic portrayals of violence. No court has aocepted such an argument, probably because existing case law does not support it.
***
Even if one accepts the basic premise that interactive games involving repetitive actions "teach" the player certain skills, the evidence as it currently exists suggests only that players are taught improved reaction time, eye/hand coordination, and how to score points in the game. Dr. Provenzo's concern that a person playing Grand Theft Auto: Vice City will learn how to shoot a police officer is little mere than conjecture: a proven ability to manipulate a controller and push buttons will not teach a person to load, aim, or fire a gun.

It's enough to make a good bleeding-heart liberal into a libertarian.

- posted by thegusdad @ 7/16/2004 04:58:00 PM