IDSA, VSDA APPLAUD DECISION BY SEATTLE JUDGE IN GAME CASE

IDSA Pres. Douglas Lowenstein said Fri.: “We are pleased that, in granting a preliminary injunction… Lasnik affirmed that games are protected speech deserving similar protection afforded to literature, music, movies and other forms of creative expression. In so doing, the court made clear the very high burden that governments face when they try to regulate such protected speech.” Lowenstein was particularly upbeat about portion of ruling in which Lasnik said: “Given the fact that within the last 2 years 2 [U.S.] Circuit Courts have unanimously struck down legislative attempts to impose regulations in this area, defendants must recognize the difficulty of the task that lies ahead.”

Calling Lasnik’s decision “a victory for the First Amendment rights of video retailers and their customers,” VSDA Pres. Bo Andersen said: “It affirms that the government cannot restrict access to videogames, even those that are -- in the court’s words -- ‘obnoxious,’ just because it doesn’t like the messages they contain. While VSDA does not believe that children should be able to obtain videogames that their parents determine are not appropriate for them, we are pleased that the court agrees that the solution devised by the state of Washington is ‘arbitrary’ and ’too broad’ and likely infringes the constitutional rights of video retailers and the customers. The better solution is for the industry to continue to educate parents about videogame ratings and for parents to utilize those ratings to make informed judgments about the games that they permit their children to play.” Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating system he referred to was modified recently to provide parents and other consumers with more details about content of games (CED June 27 p9). IDSA and VSDA teamed with Hollywood Entertainment and others last month to challenge Wash. law in court (CED June 9 p3).

Although declaration of victory by VSDA might have been premature in sense that case isn’t over yet, Lasnik in his decision suggested that VSDA and IDSA had good reason to believe eventual ruling might go their way. He said it was “not at all clear how defendants will interpret and enforce the statute: throughout the briefing and arguments of this motion, they have steadfastly refused to respond to plaintiffs’ various questions regarding matters of interpretation” of law. He said videogames were protected under First Amendment and it didn’t appear at this point that govt. had compelling enough reason to interfere with those rights: “It appears unlikely the state can show its chosen remedy will alleviate the identified problem. The state has not made any attempt to regulate the total amount of violence to which minors are exposed nor has it attempted to regulate all of the graphic violence depicted in videogames, such as the murder and decapitation of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. It has instead attempted to restrict access to a single type of violent representation (harm to identifiable law enforcement officers) in a single medium (videogames). The record currently before the court does not provide any justification for this seemingly arbitrary choice.”

Lasnik said if “the state is really interested in restricting access to only the most vile portrayals of violence” in videogames “the Act appears to sweep broadly in that it would restrict access to games which mirror mainstream movies or reflect heroic struggles against corrupt regimes, such as Minority Report: Everybody Runs,” based on last year’s Steven Spielberg film. He said “plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding defendants’ ability to show that the Act, even if crafted to further a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to alleviate the perceived harm.”

Judge said granting preliminary injunction wouldn’t irreparably harm defendants because it might only mean “delay in their enforcement authority.” On other hand, not granting injunction at this time could irreparably harm plaintiffs and others because “if the Act is ultimately found to be unconstitutional” it would prevent people “from engaging in constitutionally protected speech or expression.”

State Rep. Dickerson (D-Seattle), who sponsored legislation, said she was confident her side would win in end despite Lasnik’s ruling: “I respect Judge Lasnik’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Washington State’s recently enacted ban on the sale of cop-killer games to children. When the Washington legislature united across political party lines to pass the first law in the nation to regulate sales of ultraviolent videogames to children, we knew we faced legal challenges that would take time to resolve. I'm not at all discouraged. We are right and I am confident we will ultimately prevail. I strongly believe the courts will decide that the sickening levels of violence, brutality and racism being peddled to children for profit cannot be wrapped in our precious First Amendment.”