Readers: I have prepared this summary for those who don't want to read the entire 16 pages of the judges opinion

Readers: I have prepared this summary for those who don't want to read the entire 16 pages of the judge's opinion. I am not a legal expert, so have done the best I can. Where I have questions about what I've written I've noted them. Any comments on my summary - especially from those more familiar with interpreting law - will be appreciated.

Respectfully-

Becca Arnold

Child Responsible Media Campaign

Summary of the judge's opinion on the Minnesota law requiring a $25 fine for minors who purchase a game rated Mature or Adults Only.

Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association

Vs.

Mike Hatch in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Minnesota

July 31, 2006

In 2003 the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals (ruling on a Missouri case) ruled that video games are protected speech and not obscene (Question: The 8^th circuit decision related to a case about violence in games, as does this one. I'm not sure what they mean by video games not being obscene, as it seems that some could fall under obscenity laws and therefore be restricted to minors)

Because video games are considered protected speech, the State must

1. Prove that they have a "compelling interest" to restrict the purchase by minors of Mature and Adults-Only games.

2. Show how the regulation will alleviate harms in a direct and material way.

The State's compelling interests were to 1) protecting the psychological well being of children; and 2) fostering children's moral and ethical development.

The State relied heavily on a Meta Analysis of video game studies that was published by Dr. Craig Anderson in 2004. (Note: A Meta Analysis is an analysis of a group of other studies. In Dr Anderson's Meta Analysis he looked at all known reputable studies of the effects of video games on behavior in minors). The state did not find the study sufficient to show a causal link between violent video games, or to show any deleterious effect on the psychological, moral, or ethical well being of minors. One noted problem (noted by Dr. Anderson) is that there are not sufficient longitudinal studies (Note: Extremely violent and graphic video games have not been around long enough for longitudinal (long-term) studies. However violence in television has, and the State drew in evidence from those studies, which apparently hurt their case further, as shown in the next paragraph).

The judge also questioned whether the law would alleviate the State's concerns, as it was tailored so narrowly it could "not affect other channels through which violent representations are shown to children".

The judge also declared it unconstitutional for the State to rely the industry's self-rating system (restricting those games rated by the industry as M or AO), as the industry is a private body with no duty to answer to the public.

Becca's notes about the findings:

This ruling creates a dilemma. If the State cannot legally limit children's exposure to one form of violent media, because they cannot also limit their exposure to other form's of violence - then they have a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing to overcome - and that will not be easy.

That there wasn't a "causal" link established is really not of as much consequence as the judge gave it, at least not to social scientists (of which I am one). It is almost impossible to prove causality in any setting other than a lab setting. For example, it has never been "proved" that smoking causes cancer. However we still do not allow children to purchase cigarettes. Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I believe that when enough time has passed for more video game studies and more longitudinal (long-term) studies to demonstrate negative effects (provided that they do demonstrate negative effects), then the opinions will begin to turn in the favor of protection for children.

The detail with which the judge described the industry's rating system as non-transparent and having no duty to the public is quite interesting and possibly meaningful in the future - although I'm not sure in what context it might reappear.