Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds.yukimurasanadaAugust 2 2006, 12:37:22 UTC
I wouldn't doubt that the judge would allow it, given the clear relevance to his current case. That being said, the judge has already shown a clear and impresive level of intelligence in the function of his duties, in not allowing jacks AMicus brief, so I have to imagine he'll see the importance of this and let it in. We'll see.
Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds.nightwng2000August 2 2006, 13:48:12 UTC
Different law though. Both may be arguable under First Amendment, but each have different methods (most notably that the MN law fined the purchaser rather than the retailer).
Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds.barfoAugust 2 2006, 19:08:28 UTC
The points that they reference in the brief however seem to eqully apply to common factors of both laws, regardless of whether they are targeted at consumer or retailer.
These points being the findign that video games are free expression and regulation of them is subject to strict scrutiny, that the evidence for harm is not strong enough to meet strict scrutiny and lacks any shred of evidence of causal links, and that by not targeting other forms of violent media the bill is not narrowly tailored enough to meet strict scrutiny.
Basically its just another tick mark in the growing list of legal precedent from other districts.
Re: Given that they are being aruged on the same grounds.jabrwockAugust 2 2006, 21:55:09 UTC
Different law though
True, but both depend on the following assertions:
-That minors don't have the same 1st amendment rights as adults -That parents are incapable of monitoring what their kids are doing -That violent games fosters violence -That games aren't speech
Seeing as how the MN Judge rejected all of these, I'd say it's a relavent ruling.
The judge pretty much made up his mind anyway, it seems, so one more court decision in favor of the industry will just increase the industry's chances of winning.
Interesting but doesn’t matterandrew_eisenAugust 2 2006, 19:09:55 UTC
It will be interesting to see if this is allowed. The laws are pretty different and Brady may want to judge it completely on its own merits.
Louisiana: uses the Miller Test to determine which games fall under the law and the sellers are fined.
Minnesota: uses the ESRB to determine which games fall under the law and the buyers are fined.
Which is not to say precedence is not applicable here, games are still protected speech and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that violent games are harmful.
Will Rosenbaum’s decision be allowed as part of the record? It doesn’t matter, the result will be the same either way.
Comments 18
Reply
Reply
Will be interesting to see how it's treated.
nightwng2000
Reply
These points being the findign that video games are free expression and regulation of them is subject to strict scrutiny, that the evidence for harm is not strong enough to meet strict scrutiny and lacks any shred of evidence of causal links, and that by not targeting other forms of violent media the bill is not narrowly tailored enough to meet strict scrutiny.
Basically its just another tick mark in the growing list of legal precedent from other districts.
Reply
True, but both depend on the following assertions:
-That minors don't have the same 1st amendment rights as adults
-That parents are incapable of monitoring what their kids are doing
-That violent games fosters violence
-That games aren't speech
Seeing as how the MN Judge rejected all of these, I'd say it's a relavent ruling.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Louisiana: uses the Miller Test to determine which games fall under the law and the sellers are fined.
Minnesota: uses the ESRB to determine which games fall under the law and the buyers are fined.
Which is not to say precedence is not applicable here, games are still protected speech and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that violent games are harmful.
Will Rosenbaum’s decision be allowed as part of the record? It doesn’t matter, the result will be the same either way.
Andrew Eisen
Reply
Reply
True, but it helps to know what a fellow judge has to say about the various issues that are similar.
Reply
Leave a comment