I'd just like to say that this thing was worth waiting all day for an update. I actually read the decision in its entirety, and you guys were right, it was well worth reading, even with having to wade through the legalese. Oh, and that's the correct spelling (of legalese) according to Merriam-Webster. :)

I do want to ask something, just to be sure I understand things right. The text of the document linked to was written entirely by the judge who issued the ruling, right?

I'm glad there's somebody out there making sense.

The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel. One of them then acts as the author, but they all agree on the decision. The last bit of the opinion is sending the case back to the federal trial court (Judge Hamilton, mentioned under the case title) with an order that he issue the injunction. A Court of Appeal does not usually issue its own injunction. Once the trial has been completed, it could be appealed to the 7th Circuit again.

Judge Posner, the author here, is an excellent writer - he's the Kozinsky of the 7th Circuit (sorry, bad lawyer joke - Judge Alex Kozinsky has a reputation as one of the most clever writers on the 9th Circuit). Posner had some fame recently when they called him in to mediate the Microsoft case. Here's that decision.

One of the most interesting courses I took in law school was one on judicial decision making that was taught by a sitting 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. It was fascinating to learn the process first hand and hear all of his tales about life in those chambers. Federal judge is a good gig if you can get it - power, decent pay, and life tenure (you stay until you die, resign, or do something wrong & get impeached). For example, the judge I studied under had been appointed by Carter.

I found the opinion actually sort of thrilling to read. Not only was it evidence of a powerful mind at work, one that ranged beyond the law to touch upon the arts, but it was evidence of our legal system working. Agree or disagree, the opinion was the type of bold statement that our politicians are too fearful to make. It's good that a portion of our government works outside the boundaries of popular elections.

Let's just hope those bold, brilliant and wonderful statements don't get the opinion overturned in a higher court.

---

Quote:

One of the most interesting courses I took
in law school was one on judicial decision making
that was taught by a sitting 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals judge. It was fascinating to learn the
process first hand and hear all of his tales about
life in those chambers. Federal judge is a good
gig if you can get it - power, decent pay, and
life tenure (you stay until you die, resign, or do
something wrong & get impeached). For example, the
judge I studied under had been appointed by Carter.

---

"(sorry, bad lawyer joke - Judge Alex Kozinsky has a reputation as one of the most clever writers on the 9th Circuit)"

Thank you for posting that little explination. I thought you were refering to the Unibomber at first.

I'm just glad to see someone has taken a far enough step away from the political easy answers (read: blame the game) and has pointed out all the things that the entertainment industry has been saying for years. Violence has always been around. Do you think Jack the Ripper played Quake? Or maybe the Questioners for the Inquisition played a little too much Dungeon Keeper. Humans are violent, and if you give them the tools to play out that violence they'll use them. Hand a man a gun and he'll shoot something. Hand him a toy gun and he'll pretend to shoot something. Hand him a mouse and he'll virtually shoot something. In all cases, the result is the same; the man has played out his aggresive tendencies.

There have been studies that show that the average person who plays video games (consoles, PCs, arcades) is actually less likely to commit violence because he has an outlet for his aggression. I personally use games as a great stress relief. Bad day at work? Load up Quake III, set it on easy, and spend an hour ruthlessly turning little pixle people into even smaller chucnks of bloody pixles. No one gets hurt, and the next day I won't go road rage on someone who cut me off on the freeway.

---

Quote:

There have been studies that show that the average person who plays video games (consoles, PCs, arcades) is actually less likely to commit violence because he has an outlet for his aggression.

---

I'm reminded of this little comic:

http://www.plif.com/archive/wc161.gif

Thank god there's still some sanity left in the world.

Eishtmo, that comic was great!

Supertanker, thanks for that explanation. I went back and looked at the decision again and actually paid attention to the headers this time. I guess that what you said about there being a panel of judges, with one being the author, and that another judge (Hamilton) was being told what to do, is implied in the formatting, but wouldn't necessariliy be recognized by a lay-person (me).

---

Quote:

There have been studies that show that the average person who plays video games (consoles, PCs, arcades) is actually less likely to commit violence because he has an outlet for his aggression. I personally use games as a great stress relief.

---

I read about the studies in an article published on Gamecenter's website a couple of weeks after the Columbine school shootings. All I can remember is that it was written by one of their female staff writers and that she had links to 3 independent studies that all came to this conclusion.

I'll have to scour my old harddrive on my other computer to see if I still have the article saved.

I'll try looking for it in the Gamecenter archives. If you find the article or can find a link, please post it.

http://games.netscape.com/Features/Exclusives/Violence/index.html

http://www.gamecenter.com/Features/Exclusives/Trigger/index.html

I dunno if these are the one's you're looking for, but these two are close to the subject.

The second article is especially good, and I believe that's the one you want.

Dunno Mark Bussman,
I'm kinda partial to that first article you linked.

Hey this is good news for LAN parties, too. One of the guys that heads up the LAN party I help host was worried the law would stretch into LAN party territory making it impossibly for teens to come.

Most of our attendees are over 18 (I think 75% over 18 or 21), but that's still a tough hit.