Illinois Ban On Explicit Video Games Is Unconstitutional

An anonymous reader writes, "A federal court has struck down an Illinois law that criminalized the sale of 'sexually explicit' video games to minors. In reaching this decision, the court held that the Illinois law was too broad, because it could be read to encompass any game which displayed a female breast, even for a brief second. Interestingly, the court chose the game God of War as the model of gaming art which must be protected. As the court explained, 'Because the SEVGL potentially criminalize the sale of any game that features exposed breasts, without concern for the game considered in its entirety or for the game's social value for minors, distribution of God of War is potentially illegal, in spite of the fact that the game tracks the Homeric epics in content and theme. As we have suggested in the past, 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.'"

Old news?

[lpangelrob]

I can't really figure out where the new news is in this, seeing as we're already on the "Illinois ain't paying squat" part of this saga.

Blagojevich hasn't paid for video lawsuit as judge ordered [chicagotribune.com] (Chicago Tribune, reg. required, subscription-free Sun Times here [suntimes.com].)

...[L]awyers from Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C. say they haven't received the money or an explanation for the delay, according to court documents. So they went back to the courtroom earlier this month to ask the judge to force the administration to comply.

Chalk up another horrible idea to good ol' Rod, (illegally importing drugs from Canada, buying $2.5 million of non-FDA approved flu shots). But all's well - we voted him in another 4 years too.

The Ruling

[PakProtector]

Here's a copy of the ruling: ESA v. Illinois [daledietrich.com]

Re:Paint me surprised

[hey!]

Well -- you have to look at the reasoning, not the result, to decide if the ruling was rational.

Laws can regulate expressive speech in various ways, but laws which regulate speech based on content (as opposed to the manner in which the speech is done) must pass what is called "strict scrutiny".

Under "Strict scrutiny", the government has a burden of proof to show that the law in question is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest.

Persons of a libertarian bent might see keeping sexually explicit games out of the hands of minors as failing to rise to the level of a compelling public interest. However it sounds like the law failed because it was not "narrowly taliored".

A law which is intended to restrict access by minors to sexually explicit games may not under any conceivable circumstnaces restrict anything else. It probably helps that there is an example of how the law does more than it is supposed to, but such an example doesn't have to exist. Hypothetical future expression is important to protect too.

nss

[erbbysam]

From the no shit serlock department: you can't censor in the US! I smell a constitutional amendment to prohibit boobies from being seen! It doesn't matter how many "enemies" spew virtual blood on your screen, boobies are 100% worse!

Re:Wait...

[jacksonj04]

A vomitorium is a feature in theatres, namely the exits located below the seating usually in a thrust or amphitheatre stage, although occasionally seen in other forms. The name comes from the fact that after the performance the audience would 'vomit' out of them. They're also quite handy for cast entrances and exits.