backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by CascadingDarkn.. on Nov 30 at 2:31 PM

Judge Kennelly overturns Sexually Explicit Video Game Law in favor of free speech

In August 2005, the Illinois State Legislature enacted the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law (SEVGL) which required all retailers to place a four-inch square label on all games with sexual material (covering a significant portion of the box art), signage within five feet of game software, signage at all information desks, as well as outlawing the sale of such games to minors.

The SEVGL defines sexually explicit video games as:
[T]hose that the average person, applying contemporary community standards wouAld find, with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or pander to the prurient interest and depict or represent in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast.
The Entertainment Software Association took exception to this law and promptly sued the State of Illinois, claiming that it violated the First Amendment.

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly ruled yesterday that the SEVGL was unconstitutional, a decision that the State is currently appealing. Specifically, the court concluded that the SEVGL was not narrowly tailored and that the SEVGL’s brochure, labeling and signage provisions constituted “compelled speech” in violation of the First Amendment.

Judge Kennelly has ordered Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to pay the legal costs of the video-game industry, which now amounts to over $510,260. According to the Associated Press, the State has yet to make any indication that it will pay and that Judge Kennelly is scheduled to rule next month on whether to intervene with a deadline for payment. Since the ruling, interest on the legal fees has added more than $7,800 to the total.

“The end result of the governor's quixotic and politically motivated effort is that Illinois taxpayers now owe the video game industry over half-a-million dollars,” said Gail Markels of the Entertainment Software Association.

During the trial, the State introduced screen shots from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude and The Guy Game: Uncut and Uncensored. Parts of these games feature various images that the State alleges are covered by the law, ranging from digital drawings of exposed breasts to digital animations of sex acts.

The plaintiffs introduced the game God of War, a game which takes place in ancient Greece and roughly tracks Homeric themes, as evidence of a benign game which was unconstitutionally criminalized by the law. In God of War, a single scene depicts two bare-chested women in Ancient Greece. The plaintiffs allege that the scene featuring the bare-chested women is critical to the game as it marks the point at which the character rejects the temptations of the physical realm to focus on his mission.

In its assessment of God of War, the court wrote in its documents, “there is serious reason to believe that a statute sweeps too broadly when it prohibits a game that is essentially an interactive, digital version of the Odyssey.”


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Yes.
By Rock Hydra on 11/28/2006 4:50:41 PM , Rating: 5
Free speech 1, Idiotic censorship laws 0.




RE: Yes.
By jon1003 on 11/28/2006 5:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
...and the sales tax creeps to 10% in Chicago to pay for this crap. Pretty soon it's going to be as high as europe's VAT that makes me never want to buy stuff that it applies to. I'm sick of having to pay for idiotic politician's crusades. Oh, and the money isn't exactly going to the Gaming Software folks, it's their lawyer's fees that are getting paid, according to the article.


RE: Yes.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2006 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
10% sales tax, and then another 6.5% excise tax on tobacco, alcohol, etc. So yeah it's actually worse than VAT in some instances. I'm a Chicago resident BTW.

You would think if anything he would crusade to have the games labeled excise -- keeping it out of the hands of many but also generating revenue for the state. But then again there's a reason why he has a sub 40% approval rating.


RE: Yes.
By Zoomer on 11/30/2006 9:39:31 AM , Rating: 1
They should raise the excise tax for tobacco and lower the sales tax. ;)

Who buys more (in $ amounts) of tobacco and alcohol than other stuff anyway? If they do, then please pay for it.


RE: Yes.
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2006 5:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like governor got a shot in the foot for this one. Love it when Jack Thompson's get put in their place for unconstitutional censorship.


RE: Yes.
By Tsuwamono on 11/28/2006 5:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
In Ontario we pay 15% sales tax


RE: Yes.
By Monkmachine on 11/28/2006 5:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Try living in the Uk where its 17.5% VAT, ciggies cost £5.00 for 20, a pint is £2.50 and petrol is £0.90 per litre.


RE: Yes.
By blackbrrd on 11/28/2006 6:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the problem, we have 25% VAT in Norway. A pint is more like £5.00...


RE: Yes.
By Some1ne on 11/28/2006 7:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but do you have income tax in the UK? Here any job worth having will have you end up seeing ~40% of your income going to the federal and state governments right off the bat, and then you *still* have to pay sales tax in most areas, which tends to range from 5% to 10%...so you end up having about half of the money you earn being taken away for no good reason.


RE: Yes.
By peternelson on 11/28/2006 8:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes here in the UK we also have income tax, in bands.

Yes there is VAT @ 17.5 but there are other "stealth taxes", and things like "insurance premium tax".

Petrol prices are crazy compared to USA.

Bottled wine is double the price of wine in france.

We also have high house property prices (like the USA boom in houses).

Not only that but we have the highest property taxes in the WORLD. Plus large inheritance taxes when you die.

It's amazing our government can spend all the money they are raising ;-)


RE: Yes.
By rushfan2006 on 11/29/2006 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
The thing folks of different countries fail to understand all the time when they go on about "you american's have it easy on gas prices".....actually we pay far more than you think.....we get the cheaper prices through blood basically, and of course I know a stream of folks will reply back and flame me for saying that but its the damn truth. On top of that we subsidize our petrol industry here in the states through taxe dollars (which trinkle to them in the form of grants , but its all tax payer money in the end about).....

If we didn't do those things....the price of gas in the US would also be a lot lot higher.

Oh and silly silly me our government taxes the gas at the pump quite heavily.



RE: Yes.
By Christopher1 on 11/29/2006 3:14:46 AM , Rating: 3
40%? What world are you living in? Maybe about 20% of the money I made each year went to taxes before I got it back from the government (never made enough for them to be able to keep it until recently).

If you're paying 40% of your net yearly income in taxes, you either have a piss-poor tax agent or are not taking all the deductions you are allowed to take.


RE: Yes.
By sviola on 11/29/2006 4:58:52 AM , Rating: 4
You all complain too much. Try living in Brazil...Here you pay 43% of your yearly income to the government.

Also, we got really high sales tax (cars are about 50% - yeah, a Honda Civic here costs around US$ 35000) and our gas is US$1.40 per litre instead of gallon (it's about US$ 5.2 per gallon). Computer parts are imported, so they get 60% tax for just importing plus sales tax. Most computer parts here cost 2-3x the price in the US (and our money is worth less than half a dollar).

And what do we get back from the government? Nothing...Our education system is falling apart, there's no security (we're having an unofficial civil war here), public health is terrible and not to mention government corruption.


RE: Yes.
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 11/29/2006 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 3
HA!

You think that is bad?

Try living in Israel, cars here have a roughly 90%+ tax, and gas is nearly $1.80 per litre. Computer parts cost roughly 50% more just for the imports (like you), and our major currency, the Shekel, is worth 4.3 to the dollar (4.3/4.4 Shekels equals $1 dollar).

But unlike you mentioned, the other stuff is good except corruption.

-------
Chillin


RE: Yes.
By sviola on 11/29/2006 12:40:35 PM , Rating: 4
That're nasty taxes...hopefully, the public transports work fine...


RE: Yes.
By rushfan2006 on 11/29/2006 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 1
While it sounds like most of you are being dead serious I couldn't help but smirk a bit ...it just read like a comedy bit with each person telling of greater misfortune...made me think of the old comedy bits where they go "I used to walk 2 miles to school in my day..." "Oh yeah we walked 10 miles up hill in blizzard like conditions with newspapers for shoes" and then finally the last guy goes "shoes? we didn't have FEET!!".....


At any rate... as far as the taxes on Tobacco and Alcohol, the supposed "SIN" taxes as they are often referred to....doesn't bother me at all...they aren't necessity items, the real "sin" is taxes on housing, food and other necessity items like clothes and especially medicines.

But crying about how much a drink costs or a pack of smokes -- you'll never shock me or make me think its too high...ANYWHERE in the world on those items.

The think that will, however, amaze me is how despite the protests and anger -- ever notice how everyone STILL pays the price of alcohol and smokes no matter how expensive?

;)



RE: Yes.
By Spivonious on 11/29/2006 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
What world are you living in? I forget the exact figures, but if you make over $50k-$60k 35% goes to the Feds, and then the state and local taxes take some too. And don't forget about throwing money into Social Security and Medicare. Have you ever looked at your paystub, or are you still working part-time at the mall? You only get all of your money back if you make less than $20k.


RE: Yes.
By angryhippy on 11/29/2006 5:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
"What world are you living in? I forget the exact figures, but if you make over $50k-$60k 35% goes to the Feds, and then the state and local taxes take some too."

Yeah, I don't get taxed much since I only make around 20k -22k a year. I feel sorry for the middle class though. Everyone I know who makes $60k+ a year works pretty damn hard, then they have to give half of it to the government. I'm just unfocused and a little lazy, but life is pretty easy if you're single, healthy, and don't have kids. I don't feel much sympathy for multi-millionaires who whine about taxes, but it sucks for the middle class. True, it's higher in Europe but at least they get free medical and better retirement benefits as part of the deal.

My little sister is living in the UK with her Air Force husband, and she says they have to pay taxes for doorknobs, window screens, and a $200 a year television tax if you buy a tv. That's just plain stupid if it's true. So I guess it can be worse! :-)


RE: Yes.
By Merry on 11/28/2006 8:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
Try living in the Uk where its 17.5% VAT, ciggies cost £5.00 for 20, a pint is £2.50 and petrol is £0.90 per litre

spot the person living in London!

£1.30 a pint and 83p a litre for petrol here in Cardiff. Wouldn't know about the cigs though


RE: Yes.
By Russell on 11/29/2006 10:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
Errr...ummmm....

Well, here in Canadia "ciggies" are about $10 a pack and a pint is typically about $5-6, depending on where you go. You can get them cheaper on special but that's the standard price, more or less.

We get gouged too.


RE: Yes.
By Dfere on 11/29/2006 2:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you make halfway decent living here and own your own business, you have the following taxes. Assume 70K in net income.

28% Income
15.3% Payroll
6% State
2% Local
51.3% Income Tax

Your business pays CAT, a new form of tax on gross receipts, figure another 10% of net.

61.3%

Now figure in at least 3-5K of real estate tax. 7.15% This totals 68.45% of net income for a business owner.

Now add 7.5% sales tax on purchases. Assume after taxes all money buys tangible personal property. That is 7.5% on 32% of 70K income or another $1,680 of tax. That is an additional 2.4 percent.

This is up to 70.85 our gross each year if we "succeed" in America, living in Ohio, living in Cleveland. If an individual is "high income" add another 7% income tax.

The reason other countries adopt other structures is that they cannot track income as well as our IRS does, so they have taxes upon a sale of a good and use merchants as collectors.
Despite what anybody says, the fact we pay huge amounts of taxes in the US so 75% (Federal) can be redistributed to social progams tells me we are a socialist country that refuses to admit it. At least in Canada, they admit it.


RE: Yes.
By siberus on 11/28/2006 7:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually 14 pct they brought it down 1 pct this year. Supposedly it's going to go down 1 more pct but harpers gonna hold on to it until after the next elections, whenever the current government eventually falls .


RE: Yes.
By AlexWade on 11/28/2006 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight. It is not okay for a child to get into an "R" rated movie, but you are okay with minors buying games rated "M"? I'm not for banning "M" games, but any law that prohibits children from buying them is a good thing. It doesn't violate any constitutional right and it is not censorship; it just makes sense. Of course, parents should be doing their jobs too.

Any law that bans kids buying games that are not appropriate for them is good. Anything above and beyond is wrong.


RE: Yes.
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2006 5:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about IL, but there likely are laws that prohibit 'M' games from being sold to children. This law is likely being pasted over the top of that and covering much more then it should.

I second kids not being able to buy 'M' games, and also parent supervision. I just don't think either is what this law is about.


RE: Yes.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2006 5:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
At my local Gamestop I've actually seen kids carded trying to buy "M" games.


RE: Yes.
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2006 6:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, retailers are very good about this these days. Although Jack will tell you different. I get carded every time, and I'm 22. Don't tell me legislation like this is to protect kids, because if it was it would be written in a way so it wouldn't be overturned.


RE: Yes.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2006 5:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
The parallels between this and "Thank you for not smoking" are actually a bit uncanny. Blagojevich was not attempting to get these games out of the hands of minors -- instead he was just trying to create bigger labels and signs for warnings.


RE: Yes.
By VooDooAddict on 11/29/2006 11:24:37 AM , Rating: 3
Did anyone ever see any of these lables/stickers? Live in Chicago and since I shop for most of my games online these days I haven't seen any of the stickers.

Like other's have mentioned. Most stores won't sell "M" rated games to tiny kids. I've seen stores also strongly recomend against a particular game to parents who have little kids with them.

There are many more important ills in the world then enforcing more regulation on an entertainment industry. 'Corse there's the other argument ... if you don't have some pressure like this that games will just get worse and worse. The concept behind the legislation may be just that (knowing that it would be overturned).


RE: Yes.
By Dfere on 11/29/2006 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Big Difference though. Kids can smoke outside. They play video games somewheres indoors. What happened to parental supervision?


RE: Yes.
By Hydrofirex on 11/28/2006 11:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sick Burn!

HfX


RE: Yes.
By walk2k on 11/29/2006 1:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
More like 10 - 0.

Laws like this have been shot down as unconstitutional ALL OVER the country in the last 10 years.

The only thing they accomplish is to make some opportunistic politician's stock go up with the moral-majority crowd, and waste taxpayer's money.

They KNOW these laws will be thrown out as unconstitutional. They pass them anyway.

For those that are saying "what's the big deal, you can't get into a R-rated movie" etc etc... Please do us all a favor and learn something about censorship vs free speech. You can start by looking up "chilling effect" and "prior restraint". Then you can realize that the MPAA (movies) rating system and enforcement are entirely VOLUNTARY.

Come back and then tell me you think it's a good idea to have some government comittee deciding what speech is deemed "legal" or not.


RE: Yes.
By Vanners on 11/29/2006 11:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
and don't forget:

Children -1.

That's right, they incur a penalty because the next time a government thinks about drafting legislation to protect them against any immoral industry (and I don't mean just sexually immoral - the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry to name just a few all behave immorally without necessarily being sexual) the legislators may just call it too hard and leave the decision wholly with the parents.

Giving the parents the call isn't necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of parents look to the law for guidance about what they let their kids do. In the abscence of a law they give the green light which can cause all sorts of harm to children who will then take that harm into adult live and back into our communities.

The courts have once again completely missed the point, switching off their reasoning once the first ammendment is mentioned. The law as it was drafted clearly makes the distinction between lewd acts and "artistic" interpretation and defines it by the morals of the community. God of War would not be disadvantaged unless the community as a whole was unconvinced of the scene's artistic merit, in which case it would be a fair cop and deserves the sticker.


RE: Yes.
By CascadingDarkness on 11/30/2006 2:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion this was overturned because it was a pointless political ploy to get redundant warnings.

Every parent of children that play video games should already know of the ESRB (www.esrb.org). The rating system put into place after government officials basically threatened laws like this regarding video games. It is a huge regulating body that screens every game that comes to US an rates them accordingly.

Every game already comes with an overall rating on the front of the case (including recommended age) and a more descriptive explanation on the back. It was completely pointless to pass this law! All the games in question already have a label with same info.

If you think ESRB is not enough that is a different debate entirely which was not even hinted at. I feel that it is enough. It seems likely you didn't know anything of ESRB ratings Vanners, which in my opinion means your ranting on something you did no research on.

I also find it foolish to point out parents look to laws to teach their children. A simple example would be manners. There are no written laws about them, but hopefully most parents teach them to their children. While this is a simple example it proves that laws point out the bare minimum for children to learn and parents need to take the extra step.


A crazy state.
By Newspapercrane on 11/28/2006 6:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
When I was under seventeen at the time this law was passed, (I live in Illinois.) and I was never even questioned when purchasing M rated games.




RE: A crazy state.
By Christopher1 on 11/29/2006 3:17:54 AM , Rating: 3
Well, there isn't really any REASON for them to question you. Frankly, my daughters and cousins watched Friday the 13th when they were 4,6,12, and 13, respectively.

They dealt with it just fine, and knew that "Jason" was a bad man who no one should emulate because I and their other parents and relatives TOLD them they shouldn't emulate him.

People keep on blaming video games and computer games way too much for stuff.

I play and like Japanese Hentai games where one of the main themes is forcibly raping women and girls. You don't see me going out and doing that in real life, now do you?


RE: A crazy state.
By sviola on 11/29/2006 5:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know. You might be...But I'm hoping you're not. ;)

Well, jokes apart, I think you're right, people blame games too much, but they do that to excempt themselves from guilt. Most crimes occur due to societies negligence (be parents or the whole society, which don't do anything to improve the poor's life in a planned way - it's always easy to pretend things aren't there), and it's far easier to blame a Game or rock band for someones actions than to change themselves, specially in a hypocritical society as the US (have nothing agains americans and this is not an America issue only, as it happens in most countries and cultures), who tries to justify their actions (be right or not) in the name of "christian" moral values.


RE: A crazy state.
By angryhippy on 11/29/2006 5:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
"People keep on blaming video games and computer games way too much for stuff."

I agree completely. I watched/played plenty of violent games/movies before 18 and I would never hurt a person unless they were seriously trying to hurt/kill me or someone else. I actually found 30 minute killing sprees in Grand Theft Auto a little therapeutic after a bad day at work. As long as kids are raised ok, and don't have a serious mental illness I think violent games and movies are harmless. My friend's 5 year old girl loves playing games with her dolls & stuffed animals involving a lot of killing/cannibalism and they're total new age hippies who never let her watch anything rated more than G, much less play video games. She's a perfectly charming friendly little girl. I think violence themed play was natural long before video games!

I mean come on, watching real people torn to pieces was a big pastime in the Roman Empire, even after Christianity became the state religion. I think watching public executions was a pastime here in the US not too long ago too. I think simulated violence is a hell of a lot better than real violence.

Now the anorexic makeup/computer enhanced models in the media actually seem to have some negative effects on girls self-esteem. Most of my girlfriends seemed to have a fear I would suddenly dump them if they gained 5 or 10 pounds, and I usually didn't even notice when they did, much less lose attraction.


RE: A crazy state.
By Vanners on 11/30/2006 12:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
How many people are you?

Most laws are inacted for the 10% (or less) of the population that needs the law to behave reasonably. Some people would kill if the law permitted it, a whole lot more would kill if sufficiently aroused, but they don't because they can reason and know a law prohibits it. This law is for those who would be adversely affected, and for the community who needs protection from them.

If you are wondering where the crime actually comes from, most criminals feel justified in their actions. They have rationalisations for their behaviour, much like the guy who speeds, or the woman who runs a "just" red light. Very few people who commit crime actually desire to be criminal, most of them don't even acknowledge that they are criminals.


RE: A crazy state.
By CascadingDarkness on 11/30/2006 2:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
By this argument it seems we need laws for everything we possibly don't/do want people to do.

You say "behave reasonably". We already have laws against murder, rape, speeding, and running red lights. Unless you want to extend this to making laws for everything then the argument for protecting first amendment rights has merit.

There is a line somewhere, it isn't easy to define and is always changing. As I could point out "reasonable" is a matter of opinion. Mine happens to be this law is huge overkill.


aaaaccchhh
By Lazarus Dark on 11/28/2006 6:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
post-pubescent female breast.


ewww!? wtf? so, child porn is okay? thats gross. why so specific, why not just say breasts? Am I the one with the sick mind or does anyone else think this wording sounds grossly kidpron freindly?




RE: aaaaccchhh
By Axbattler on 11/28/2006 8:36:18 PM , Rating: 3
I suspect you are not the only one to think of it that way.

But that is not how I see it. Does breasts automatically have an sexual concatenation? In a sexual act perhaps, but guys are exempted when it is only on 'display'. Men & boys.

Well, what are the differences between a pre-pubescent girl and pre-pubescent boy in that area? Probably not much. So I can see why the legislation specify post-pubescent females.

Otherwise, as you say, you would need to cover all breasts. Including men & boys. Unless, you believe that female breasts, at any age, have a sexual concatenation. Fair enough, but I don't see it that way.

I am sure there may be pedophiles who are into topless pre-pubescent girls. Or boys. Or maybe a whole loads of other unpredictable 'kinks'. Should we then expect that all computerised 'kids' to be appropriately 'covered' on those basis?



RE: aaaaccchhh
By JollyRogers on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: aaaaccchhh
By Spivonious on 11/29/2006 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
sexual concatenation


LOL! I hope you meant sexual connotation.


huh?
By msva124 on 11/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: huh?
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2006 6:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I guess and hope that would be covered under dozens of other laws. Other wise I will be sure to say clear of IL if I have kids some day.


RE: huh?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2006 6:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
There's a similar regulation for the FCC. It just means half naked babies are kosher.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki