Game Industry Sues To Overturn Another Violent Game Law
The Entertainment Merchants Assn. (EMA) and Entertainment Software Assn. (ESA) sued another state for a violent videogame law they believe violates First Amendment rights. This time, the groups filed a suit in U.S. Dist. Court, Oklahoma City, to overturn Okla. House Bill 3004, signed into law June 9 and slated to take effect Nov. 1.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The groups complained in the suit that the law “criminalizes the sale, rental, dissemination or display of videogames based solely on their expressive content, in violation of the First Amendment.” Named as defendants in the suit were Okla. Gov. Brad Henry (D), Atty. Gen. Drew Edmondson (D) and Okla. County District Atty. Wesley Lane (R).
The law amended the state’s “harmful to minors” law, making it a crime for anybody in Okla. to rent, sell, display or otherwise disseminate to a person under 18 years old any “interactive videogame or computer software” containing “inappropriate violence” as defined by the new law. Anybody who violates the law would be subject to “substantial criminal fines,” the game industry groups said. A person convicted of violating the law would be guilty fo a misdemeanor and fined up to $500 for the first or 2nd offense. A person convicted of a 3rd or subsequent violation would be fined up to $1,000.
Because of “numerous vague terms,” the law “also creates a chilling effect on a great deal of speech, as game creators, publishers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers will respond to the Act’s uncertainty by self- censoring, depriving adults and children of access to undeniably protected expression,” the suit said.
EMA Pres. Bo Andersen complained “the law’s definitions are so vague and imprecise that no videogame retailer could ever know whether a particular videogame is covered by the restrictions.” Games featuring “inappropriate” violence under the law would include those that lack “serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors.” Games that adults 18 or older, applying “contemporary community standards,” find “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors” also fall under the law’s definition.
The suit said “the Act’s blatant violation of First Amendment freedoms is starkly underscored by the fact that the Act appears to prevent parents from giving games that fall under the Act’s definition of ‘inappropriate violence’ to their own children.” Okla. is, therefore, the first U.S. state “to pass a law that takes the unprecedented step of telling parents that the government knows better than they what games their children should play,” the ESA said while announcing the suit.
The EMA and ESA said similar laws had been declared unconstitutional by 6 federal courts in 5 years, with each of the judges rejecting claims made by states that violent videogames cause aggression.
“Legislators have sold parents a bill of goods for political expediency,” said ESA Pres. Doug Lowenstein. “They know the bill will be struck down, they know it’s based on bad science, and they know it won’t help parents do their jobs. What they won’t tell voters: We just picked your pocket to the tune of a half million dollars, the amount the state will have to reimburse the ESA after the inevitable decision is made to strike down the law.” Echoing comments he had made before, Lowenstein went on to say “parents, not local police offices, should decide what games are suitable for their children.” Lowenstein also said the ESA was disappointed the Okla. legislature opted to enact the bill rather than pursue constitutional and effective ways to work cooperatively with industry, retailers, government, parent groups and health groups to educate parents about the Entertainment Software Rating Board’s game ratings and content descriptors and the parental controls available in all next-generation videogame consoles.
The EMA and ESA asked the Court to issue a declaratory judgment that the law was void and couldn’t be acted upon and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the law from being enforced. They also asked for attorneys’ fees and other costs, as well as “other general and equitable relief as [the Court] deems fit and proper.” The suit came only about a week after the game industry sued La. in U.S. Dist. Court, Baton Rouge, over a similar violent game law (CED June 19 p8).