Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Rejection of Illinois game law upheld

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reiterates lower court's ruling that legislation designed to limit minors' access to sexually explicit games was unconstitutional.

Last year, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the Violent Video Games Law and the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law. The two laws sought to limit the sale and rental of games with violent and sexually explicit content to minors, and it required retailers to post warning signs and label such games with four-inch-squared stickers carrying an "18" label. Neither law had a chance to go into effect, as the industry trade group Entertainment Software Association challenged both pieces of legislation in court and had them declared unconstitutional.

Blagojevich vowed to appeal the ruling and continue "the crusade against violent video games," but only wound up filing an appeal to save the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL). Today the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on Blagojevich's appeal, denying it on each count and upholding the previous court's ruling.

A trio of judges denied the appeal primarily because they found the law wasn't tailored narrowly enough. While the state plucked phrasing from previously upheld obscenity statutes for its law, the court noted that it neglected to include some key phrases from those laws. Specifically, the SEVGL wouldn't require authorities to take into account whether or not the work in question had some redeeming social importance for minors or "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" when taken as a whole.

The appellate judges also denied the state's argument that the law was narrowly tailored because it only applied to minors, noting that even minors have First Amendment rights. They even referred to a previous game-related ruling in the same appellate court, where the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, was appealing to have its ordinance restricting minors from playing violent arcade games declared constitutional.

"The murderous fanaticism displayed by young German soldiers in World War II, alumni of the Hitler Jugend, illustrates the danger of allowing government to control the access of children to information and opinion," the court wrote in that case.

The appeals court judges also upheld the ruling that the state's plans to put a sticker on all games deemed sexually explicit were unconstitutional.

"Indeed, at four square inches, the '18' sticker literally [emphasis in original] fails to be narrowly tailored--the sticker covers a substantial portion of the box. The State has failed to even explain why a smaller sticker would not suffice. Certainly we would not condone a health department's requirement that half of the space on a restaurant menu be consumed by the raw shellfish warning. Nor will we condone the State's unjustified requirement of the four square-inch '18' sticker."

As of press time, neither Governor Blagojevich's office nor the firm representing the state had returned GameSpot's requests for comment as to whether or not they would further appeal the ruling.

99 Comments

  • Scorpion16

    Posted Dec 4, 2006 8:50 pm GMT

    It's funny how our hypocrite governor here can talk about teaching kids good morals by keeping violent games away from kids when he's under investigation for corruption and wrongdoing much like Ryan was.

    Yeah your a great role model for America's children Mr.Blagojevich.

  • cjcr_alexandru

    Posted Nov 29, 2006 7:38 am GMT

    This has become really boring. It is a replay of a replay of a replay of an article published by GameSpot 6 months ago (or more).

  • wrect

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:11 pm GMT

    Don't act surprised, Blagojevich! You knew exactly what was going to happen! Now you get to do the whole "moral crusader" thing without having to endure the headache of enforcing your own designed-to-be-stricken law!... And your constituents are dumb enough to buy the whole thing!

  • princeofgames90

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 1:08 pm GMT

    The problem is with the parents They bye them for There greedy kids and then complain

  • talshiarr

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 11:03 am GMT

    Someday I hope paranoid zealot conservatives and meddlesome, high-minded liberals will get the clue that government is not a replacement for parents and that not every kid exposed to "salacious" content will turn into a serial killer or misogynist. I'm fairly sure it'll never happen though.

  • mskittykat

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:45 am GMT

    Personally I think the politicians are missing the point. The games are already rated...period.

    The gaming industry knows the product they push and in an effort to "do the right thing" (most likely to avoid stuff lke this), they have every game clearly labled. They're rating system is more definitve than even TV's failed system. It's not the industry's responsability to sell the game to any one, it's the stores....

    If you want to blame anybody, blame the stores for not following policy OR how about blame the parents for not doing their job and regulating what goes on in the house hold. So what if the Hot Coffee mod was created, they've already let you know the game is Rated "M" for mature audiences, more specifically 18 and older.... it says so right on the box! Or did I miss something?? How about these people (parents and politicians alike) take some time to do some actual research into the genre and see what really goes on as opposed to the end product that happens to be mentioned by somebody's psycho kid.

  • HarakoMeshi

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:28 am GMT

    "come on isn't it more the parent/guardian's resposibility to allow only certain types of games that you think are appropriate? Why would you impose a freaking law for it?!?! "

    Tell that to all the annoying kids playing Gears of War online.

    Anyway I thought games were already market "M" for mature and stuff like that. Aren't shops meant to not sell those games to kids?

  • HarakoMeshi

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:27 am GMT

    lol. On the one hand I find it disturbing that preventing children from looking at pr0n is unconstitutional. On the other hand they tried to bite off too much with huge 4 inch stickers.

  • Cloud737

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:27 am GMT

    Serves them right. Politicians are really doing this for their own propaganda, not for the people`s sake. Take that stupid politicians!

  • Lord_Bafford

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:25 am GMT

    come on isn't it more the parent/guardian's resposibility to allow only certain types of games that you think are appropriate? Why would you impose a freaking law for it?!?!

  • maestromjs

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:10 am GMT

    Great, big sticker, I guess they realise that the children and parents might be suffering from diabetes related vision problems.

  • wonkisjones

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 9:33 am GMT

    jajaja
    the government...

  • Autolycus

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 9:14 am GMT

    the government cant and WILL NEVER raise your child. Stop trying to be lazy americans and start being good parents.... the end.

  • Fire_Zealot

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 9:10 am GMT

    Aaah! I'm so sick of these politicians/ I mean, whats the point? I'm 14, I play Halo, and I'm NOT CRAZY! God! You give 2 million kids Doom, chances are 1 of them with the right conditions is gonna go freak! My 10 year old brother plays Halo too, and he isnt going on shooting sprees!

    Heres the thing, I can understand it for some games( like singles flirt up your life). But really, wouldnt a parent tell THAT game is a bit out of the age group? It is the parents job to decide if a game is too mature for their kids, NOT the governments...

  • Hayabusa_san

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:40 am GMT

    I can't beleive stuff like this is still going on. Politicians can't seem to take a hint. Kids will get their hands on the games regardless. So I don't see what the big deal is. Plus, I figured a politician would also know that most laws of this nature get put down as unconstitutional anyway, nearly destroying the entire point of even trying.

    Oh well, it doesn't matter anyway. Not like it affects me any.

  • KingofTrolls

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:16 am GMT

    Like this is going to stop the kids from standing in front of game stores offering peeps that are 17+ money to buy there mature game for them. I see it all the time.

  • Dolacide

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 2:12 am GMT

    Yay, justice does work sometimes.

  • rick909

    Posted Nov 28, 2006 12:13 am GMT

    Well said subrosian.

    Parents and the people parents allow to interact with their children while they are growing up have a profound impact much greater than anything games, movies or music can create. It's all about rolemodels. The people a child wants to grow up to be like. That's the way it's been since the beginning of the human race and that's the way it's always going to be. So, be good person and love your kids and they'll grow up to be good people and to love you and their own children. It's a simple formula that videogames can't touch.

  • wwonka666

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 11:03 pm GMT

    It's good to see that the government is protecting our First Amendment rights. Games should be kept away from minors by their parents and not by laws from the government. These laws are clearly un-constituational for the masses and I'm glad to see our government is recognzing that. PARENTS YOU NEED TO MONITOR WHAT GAMES YOUR KIDS ARE PLAYING AND SPEND TIME WITH YOUR FAMILY SO THAT YOUR KIDS DO NOT GROW UP TO BE PSYCHOS.

  • The_SSun

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:42 pm GMT

    subrosian-You can't use logic in here. It might hurt some people.

    >

    Good post.

  • subrosian

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:34 pm GMT

    The comparison to Hilter is because Hilter instituted programs teaching youth the Nazi way of thinking. The implication is that the government should not tell people how to think and live - or restrict people from making choices simply because it doesn't agree with those choices.

    Whether or not violence is bad isn't the issue - the issue is whether the government has the right to restrict and censor your access to material simply because they find it offensive.

    The court made the right decision in ruling these laws were unconstitutional. The spirit behind them was to try and censor violent video games. That's not right - using government ton control people's choices of what material to view. You're perfectly in your right to watch snuff films eight hours a day if you'd like, or pornography, or even hate speeches by racist politicians - that is your right.

    Freedom of speech is about protecting the opinions we don't agree with, it's about saying "adult material is adult material" instead of coming up with individual labels. A James Bond movie doesn't have to put a giant label on the front simply because it shows gunfights and sex. And the real bottom line here is - this is about freedom of choice. The people who want cenorship are like the motivational speaker in Donnie Darkio - people who are out to make a buck on the fear of parents. Parents - make the right choice, sit down and talk to your kids, explain appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Make yourself a role model of approrpiate behavior - and most of all - teach your kids some discipline.

    Playing a few violent video games shouldn't change who you are as a person, or become your entire life. Seeing a person drinking or smoking in a movie doesn't turn you into a nicotine-addicted alcoholic - it's lack of self-discipline that leads to that. If you can't drink a few beers without going psycho and downing a keg - or if you can't control the urge to blow your roommate's brains out you're not ready to live in the real world.

  • Runningflame570

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:19 pm GMT

    Good to see the courts still get this at least..now if they would just overturn some of the other crap laws and rulings that have allowed us to go so far off course.

  • Aeo

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:11 pm GMT

    The legal battle between the medium and malignant politicians is far from over. There was a reasonable judge in this case and i'm suprised he went as far as to reference the Nazi Youth in rebuking the hopeful legislation. Then again in Canada, my government is luring developers and encouraging game startups with assloads of money. Canada! Rockstar's Refuge.

  • CyphenX

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 9:25 pm GMT

    PWNED! Justice For All!!!

  • Jerrymiru

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 9:07 pm GMT

    No surprise here...

  • botanisk

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 8:44 pm GMT

    Ha ha, priceless. Go America
    The only sad thing as an European I have to tolerate a certain right extremist Italian mayor, who thinks video games corrupts children.

    Come on, who cares if a child gets buried alive.

  • DDRFreak808

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 8:28 pm GMT

    I know that this is not the end that we'll hear of this. I know that people like Blagojevich and Deanna will try to get this legislation passed, and in the end, it will.

    I honestly think that this is a good idea. I admit, if this law went in to place today, I would not be able to buy violent video games because I'm too young. I do agree that it is the parents' job to prevent their kids from partaking in certain activities, such as playing violent video games. If all parents told their children what not to do and the children listened, there would be no reason for something such as this.

    But not all parents will prevent their children from playing games, and even if they do, the kids will get their hands on them anyways because their parents said no. Because of this, the law has to step in.

    My only grief with the law is the way that it is set up. If I remember correctly, the Governor gets to make a committee which rates the games independently. If they find them too bad, they stick a huge sticker on the box, thus preventing anyone from seeing the game (A.K.A. censoring it). If the committee just plain doesn't like a game, and it has minor violence, they could stick the sticker on it. There's no rules or regulations as to what constitutes violent. Then, the sticker, a 4 inch square , is stuck on the box. It is not that necessary to have such a huge sticker. I think it would be more effective if a smaller, horizontal sticker was placed beneath the price tag on games. People will see it if it's by the price tag, slightly bigger than the price tag, of course.

    I'm expecting it to happen. It wouldn't be the first time that the legislation defied the courts. They just have to find another way to pass such a bill.

  • comthitnuong

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 7:44 pm GMT

    i can understand the sexualy explicit laws but the violence ones hsouldnt be there

  • Max_Hydrogen

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 6:44 pm GMT

    "Crusade" would we... man these people are nuts. It's comforting to see rational judges making intelligent decisions. Der Pape war in das... So many hacks want to make a career out of ressentiment and people's desire for enemies; they go after whatever came out after their generation became old.

    Leave Video Games alone!

    Libertas exigit sacrificos.

  • DeathmageMokey

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 5:48 pm GMT

    I totally agree that laws dictating the sales of videogames is unconstitutional. They already have a rating, and you can't even buy an M-rated game without a parent if you are under 18, so I think if your parent thinks it is ok, then it is ok.

  • jillwarrior

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 5:15 pm GMT

    Hey Kravyn81 that sounds like a fun game! Can i play that with my wiimote?

  • assassinX01

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 5:09 pm GMT

    "A trio of judges denied the appeal primarily because they found the law wasn't tailored narrowly enough. While the state plucked phrasing from previously upheld obscenity statutes for its law, the court noted that it neglected to include some key phrases from those laws. Specifically, the SEVGL wouldn't require authorities to take into account whether or not the work in question had some redeeming social importance for minors or "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" when taken as a whole. "


    The same logic was used when analyzing God of War. A judge wrote a 52 page ruling on how, yes it was violent, but the work should be considered as a whole rather then in specific junctures.

    But seriously, they need to get on. They're not going to win this crap; focus on something important. Like getting a capable president into office.

  • Kravyn81

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:56 pm GMT

    These stupid government leaders just don't learn, do they? It's like watching a retarded dog constantly running into a sliding glass door.

  • JL2K6

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:47 pm GMT

    oh my god why do these people care so much about violent games? they don't do crap about violent MOVIES or porno. and those have REAL PEOPLE. violence isn't new. look at the crusades. look at all those wars in the past. they are focusing too much on GAMES. they're just games. jesus christ.

  • thepyrethatburn

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:43 pm GMT

    No, you misunderstand. I said that the "slippery slope" argument isn't a valid argument for those two. I did not say that there are not valid arguments. However, the "slippery slope" argument is not really a valid one because it isn't a valid argument to do or not to do something on the basis that someone may use that decision and apply to another decision that is somewhat related.

    And, no. I really don't buy that. I think it is more of a case of the usage being praised because it is used in a pro-game context, not due to it's validity.

  • Vash67

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:42 pm GMT

    You'd think these people would know the law already before trying to do something like this. @_@ The Bill Of Rights is there for a reason!

  • TheChad1215

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:36 pm GMT

    "Is it legal to sell Playboy magazines to someone under 18 in the state of Illinois??? I think the same law shall apply without fuss."

    Difference... The main point here is it would be illegal to PLAY video games, not just BUY them.

  • ralphikari

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:34 pm GMT

    Is it legal to sell Playboy magazines to someone under 18 in the state of Illinois??? I think the same law shall apply without fuss.

  • umbrae

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:34 pm GMT

    The comparison is praised in this case because it relates: ie keeping the government from restricting civil liberties.

    And the jab about video games and stem cell research never having a valid argument depends on your viewpoint. Those that can not see the validity of both sides of an argument are just uneducated, and should not be arguing to begin with. Like ends every statement with "Just because".

  • thepyrethatburn

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:18 pm GMT

    "They have to make this type of comparison. Video games getting censored could easily be considered the beginning of a disastrous trend. How easily would this be used to start censoring TV, then movies, then books.... "



    No, the judge really didn't have to. I find it amusing that, when the opposition uses comparisons to Hitler in their arguments, people jump on those comparisons as just plain stupid. But, when this judge used the Hitler comparison in a pro-game argument, people praise it as a sound comparison.



    As for the "slippery slope" argument, that can be used for just about any case. Video games, stem cell research, etc. It is almost never a valid argument.



    As I said, good decision but the judge got a little overly dramatic with his comparisons.

  • BurningChrome

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:15 pm GMT

    More activist judges.
    We need to throw the bums out and install some right wing nut job puppets in their place.Where is Darth Rove when we need him!
    That will make little Johnny safe from the nefarious game designers and their "war on Christianity"!!

  • snakenamedjoe

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:06 pm GMT

    It's not that it makes them less violent. The fact is Hitler controlled young Germans by censoring information that was given to them. He did not allow them to hear anything but what he wanted to hear and thus brainwashed them at a young age into believing what the government wanted them to believe.

    The judge is saying that the American government does not have the right to make a decision about what information to withhold from minors, whether they deem it violent or not. American citizens must make that decision on a person by person basis, not be driven by the whole of society.

  • darunia106

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 4:01 pm GMT

    There were controversies like this when the film industry started to show explicit and questionable material in their movies. Most of the cases made though seemed to favor a balance of freedom of speech and good taste. I bet ten years from now these talks will fade into nothingness as people realize that it's bad parenting that leads to violent children, who in their right mind would let a young grade-schooler or extremely impressionable kid play Grand Theft Auto?

  • MarysSoldier

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:54 pm GMT

    I'm confused about the comparison to Nazi Germany. How is providing children with violent video games supposed to make them less violent?

    All this hatred of censorship just opens the floodgates of Hell.

  • Cypher_VR

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:53 pm GMT

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=xCT7-ZMpxKE

    Right On!
    Whenever someone like JT and the like bashes videogames, someone PLEASE post this video!!

  • gamerfps

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:42 pm GMT

    What these politicians don't seem to understand is that video games are art. I'm sure many of them read romance novels and watch action movies, video games are no different than those two entertainment mediums.

    And I honestly doubt letting your kids play video games will scar them, I've been watching movies like "The Shining" and "Alien" since I was two and I turned out just fine. One thing though, my dad was always there reminding me that none of that was real and was just fiction, I guess that kind of parenting is out of the question these days, though.

    Oh, and comparing the law to Hitler that was amazing! The judges have been impressing me with how understanding they are about the video game industry as a whole, and not just what politicians want conservative, suburban parents to see.

    (And was anyone else shocked whenever The Governator tried to pass that law in California?! I mean, I liked the guy and still do, but come on! He's made some of the most violent, gun glorifying films I've ever seen. Great way to be a hypocrite, Arnie.)

  • oboewan9999

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:39 pm GMT

    I have one thing to say:
    TCHBO.

    The
    ****suckers
    Have
    Been
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNED!!!!!!

  • Bgrngod

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:34 pm GMT

    "It's a good decision but....really, comparing video game laws to Hitler's Jugend? That's going a little overboard."

    They have to make this type of comparison. Video games getting censored could easily be considered the beginning of a disastrous trend. How easily would this be used to start censoring TV, then movies, then books....

    We would wake up with the only producer of media being the government, whom would only make licensed games based off their "Government is great" franchise.

  • UDintNoe

    Posted Nov 27, 2006 3:34 pm GMT

    The real problem is the parents. Parents should be more responsible and pay more attention to what their kids are playing. Their kids should atleast know what is right and wrong from playing violent games. If not then it is the parents responsibility to teach them that.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!