IDSA CHALLENGES WASH. VIDEOGAME LAW IN COURT

IDSA and rest of game industry coalition filed complaint and separate motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. Dist. Court, Seattle, Thurs. night. IDSA Pres. Douglas Lowenstein said: “While we share the state’s objective to restrict the ability of children to purchase games that might not be appropriate for them, we passionately oppose efforts to achieve this goal by running roughshod over the constitutional rights of videogame publishers, developers and retailers to make and sell games that depict images some find objectionable. We believe a combination of voluntary enforcement at retail and consumer education about videogame ratings is vastly preferable.”

Lowenstein also said IDSA was even more confident now that Wash. law would “be struck down” after 8th U.S. Appeals Court, St. Louis, earlier in week struck down St. Louis County ordinance that had sought to ban sale of violent videogames to minors (CED June 5 p3).

Wash. lawsuit argued that statute in question was content- based restriction on dissemination of First Amendment-protected expression. It said law targeted only games with depictions of violence to “public law enforcement officer(s)” despite there being no definition that would clarify what was meant. Lowenstein asked: “Does it cover plainclothes police, does it cover corrupt police, does it cover a Gestapo agent, a futuristic policeman or even a game where police cars crash when players throw bananas at them? The law’s definitions and terms are unconstitutionally vague, making it impossible for developers and publishers to know what depictions will run afoul of it, and for retailers to know what games they can and cannot sell.”

VSDA Pres. Bo Andersen said: “VSDA wishes that the legislature and the governor had stood up for the First Amendment and rejected this law when they had the chance. Unfortunately, they chose censorship instead of free speech, and now we must petition the courts to protect the First Amendment rights of retailers to offer and their customers to rent and buy the videogames of the customer’s choice. We are confident that the courts will vindicate those rights.”

Industry coalition filing suit also includes Interactive Entertainment Merchants Assn. (IEMA), International Game Developers Assn. (IGDA), Wash. Retail Assn. IGDA Program Dir. Jason Della Rocca said: “As videogames emerge as the art form of the 21st century, developers need the freedom to explore and express all aspects of the human condition. Having state- enforced regulation would stifle creativity -- and consumer choice -- to a point that would simply not be accepted in other forms of art and entertainment.”

IEMA Pres. Hal Halpin said his group “has worked to educate parents about the ESRB [Entertainment Software Rating Board] rating system so they may make appropriate entertainment choices on behalf of their children. Further, the majority of IEMA members have voluntarily begun restricting the sale of M-rated product to minors. But we oppose this law both because it violates our consumers’ First Amendment rights, and it is unenforceable and impossibly vague. Retailers cannot and should not be made to be the content police, and we are confident that the court will agree.”

Among arguments in suit filed Thurs. were: (1) Wash. act “violates the First Amendment and other provisions of the United States Constitution by creating penalties for the distribution of computer and video games based solely on their particular ‘violent’ content and viewpoint. The First Amendment prohibits such content- and viewpoint-based censorship.” (2) “Computer and video games are a form of artistic expression much like other forms of protected expression, such as movies, books and music. They contain… combinations of narrative, storyline, music and graphic design, which game designers use to tell stories and entertain audiences. These various elements in computer and video games are fully protected expression both individually and when combined.”

In motion requesting preliminary injunction, game industry coalition said plaintiffs would “suffer immediate and irreparable harm and the public interest will suffer” if injunction weren’t granted by court. Coalition offered long explanation of how games depicted law enforcement officers of various kinds. It wrote that officers depicted in games had ranged from cartoon character Chief Wiggums in The Simpsons Road Rage to intelligence officers in James Bond games, to military “police” such as Gestapo officers in Medal of Honor: Frontline: “As with other literature, sometimes these officers are the ‘good guys;’ sometimes they are the ‘bad guys;’ sometimes there are some of each; and sometimes the line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is difficult to define.”