The Videogame Violence Bill would fine retailers $500 if they sell violent video games depicting the killing of a police officer to anyone under 17.

But the IDSA, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo opposed the law, saying that it infringed the First Amendment free speech rights of game developers.

On a very strange note, the bill's sponsor, Washington State legislator Mary Lou Dickerson, stated that she felt the law would be defensible in court.  She said that because the law is narrow in its scope, it wouldn't violate the First Amendment (huh?).  This seems like it is based on the same old (unproven) argument that children that play violent games will become violent, but instead, children that play violent games that feature violent against police officers will become violent towards police officers.  Same argument.  There just seems to be no difference at all, and no court has ever stated that they wanted a more specific definition of violence or whom the violence is being portrayed against. 

Also, since the law is more specific, the evidence that must be presented by the state must be specific to tailor toward that interest.  At this point, there has not ever been a study done that overwhelmingly shows that children who play video games that feature violence against police, will in turn become violent towards police.  In essence, the state will go into court empty handed as far as specific evidence is concerned.  Ms. Dickerson must not have done her homework on this one.  Look for the state to bring in the same evidence (if you call it evidence) into court that other cities/counties brought in to court with them (as in the Indianapolis case and the St. Louis county case).

The reason it seems like the same old argument is, first of all, they want to regulate games that feature violence against police.  Then if that succeeds, they, secondly, will want to regulate games that feature violence against women, ....then men, then animals, then aliens from outer space.  So, they will end up right back to where they started: trying to regulate violent games (in general).  Rather than do it all at once, they feel that doing it piece by piece will somehow pass constitutional muster.  Oh the humanity!