Once again the video game industry is victorious in another one of its battles against state regulation of violent video games. Today the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), representing the computer and video games industry, announced that a federal district court in Michigan ruled that a bill—SB416, which was signed into law by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm—intended to restrict the sale of certain games to minors is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented.

Apparently the state of Michigan had claimed that video games' interactive nature made them less entitled to protection under the First Amendment, but The Hon.George Caram Steeh, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, clearly did not agree with this assessment.

"The interactive, or functional aspect, in video games can be said to enhance the expressive elements even more than other media by drawing the player closer to the characters and becoming more involved in the plot of the game than by simply watching a movie or television show," explained Judge Steeh. "It would be impossible to separate the functional aspects of a video game from the expressive, inasmuch as they are so closely intertwined and dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience."

Last November, the very same judge handed down a temporary injunction against the Michigan law, but the latest ruling has now transformed that temporary block into a permanent one.

Although the federal government is still pushing for the CDC to investigate the effects of all electronic media on children, there is still no evidence of a direct link between violence in video games and real-life violence acted out by kids or teens. Regarding studies cited by the state in support of the bill, Judge Steeh said, "Dr. (Craig) Anderson's studies have not provided any evidence that the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior exists... The research not only fails to provide concrete evidence that there is a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior, it also fails to distinguish between video games and other forms of media."

While certain politicians and anti-game activists have also suggested that games are far worse for children than other media because they offer interactive, not passive experiences, the district court once again shot down this notion. "...it could just as easily be said that the interactive element in video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they would actually perform such acts in reality....Not only does the Act not materially advance the state's stated interest, but it appears to discriminate against a disfavored 'newcomer' in the world of entertainment media. Thus, 'singling out' the video game industry does not advance the state's alleged goal," concluded Judge Steeh.

Naturally, the ESA couldn't be happier with the court's ruling. The organization also said that it would seek reimbursement from Michigan for its legal fees, a move it also recently took with the state of Illinois.

"Judge Steeh's ruling represents a sweeping rejection of the state's claims regarding the harmful effects of violent video games and we will move immediately for reimbursement of the substantial legal fees incurred in this court fight which the state could have, and should have, never triggered," commented ESA President Douglas Lowenstein. "It is noteworthy that Judge Steeh specifically chastised the state for not doing what we urged them to do from the start, which is to find less restrictive ways to help ensure that parents make sound choices about the games their kids play. With this wasteful litigation behind us, we hope the state will now do just that and we remain ready to work cooperatively with them."