I served as an expert witness in the case of ESA v. Blagojevich, better known as the Illinois video game case, last fall. Many readers here have had experience with the legal system, IP, First Amendment issues. I had not, and found the whole process pretty eye-opening. From the legal n00b point of view it was hard not to notice the worlds of law and academe not so much colliding, but talking past one another. The goals and methods are radically different. (The lawyers here may commence giggling)
Still, explaining how MMOs work to a federal judge is partly entertaining and partly intimidating ("Yes, your honor, that is what a fed ex quest is."). If I ever needed proof that the fun and games we study here are serious, this was it.
Some examples:
In science--social science especially--we rarely "prove" much of anything. We find evidence that supports a hypothesis and thereby a theory, but we almost never claim that we have (ahem) the smoking gun. So it was especially odd to be on the witness stand and be asked about clear evidence. Did I think that the evidence to date proves that video games cause aggression and violence? No, I don't, but even being asked about "proof" made me realize that I was not in Kansas anymore.
Also, the social sciences aren't much of an adversarial system. Imagine the following exchange taking place at an academic conference: "Isn't it true, Dr. Smith, that you really didn't study X at all!? In fact, what you studied and can talk about is something completely unrelated!"
Of course, it would liven up conferences.
I should note that the various expert witnesses assembled--regardless of side--felt a sense of comraderie. The best-known proponent of the violence-from-games side is Craig Anderson, and I have to say that while I disagree with many of his conclusions, he was quite a nice fellow.
In any case, I thought it might be useful or interesting for anyone interested in the legal side of video game legislation to be able to see some of the materials from the case. I've dropped everything I got (depositions, court transcripts, complaints, the final opinion, etc.) here.
These are all part of the public record. Note for teachers: I used them as part of a mock trial in class last term and the students got a kick out of it.
Good stuff. Do you know if the defendants plan to appeal the decision?
Posted by: Psyae | Jan 12, 2006 at 11:03
No clue. I do know that there are several other similar cases with nearly identical writing in the laws that are going to trial. The word is that California may be the next spot.
Some legal minds here would know the process better and will hopefully comment on what can be appealed where and why.
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Jan 12, 2006 at 11:08
How's this for answering my own question? :)
[I apologize ahead of time if the format is all icky]
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Summary
Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-1012 Filed: 1/3/06
Nsuit: 3950 Constitutnlty. St Stat-Fed Que
Entertainment Softwa, et al v. Blagojevich, Rod
Appeal from: United States District Court
Lower court information:
District: 0752-1 : 05 C 4265
Ordering Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge
1/3/06 Private civil case docketed. [06-1012] [1939591-1]
Transcript information sheet due 1/13/06. Appellant's brief
due 2/13/06 for Rod R. Blagojevich. (hudk) [06-1012]
1/3/06 Filed Appellant Rod R. Blagojevich docketing statement.
[06-1012] [1939595-1] (hudk) [06-1012]
1/3/06 [06-1012] ROA from No. Dist. of Il., E. Div. due 1/24/06.
(hudk) [06-1012]
1/11/06 ORDER: The court orders these appeals CONSOLIDATED for
purposes of briefing and disposition: [1940452-1] DW
[06-1012, 06-1029] Appellant's brief due 2/13/06 for Rod R.
Blagojevich in 06-1012, for Lisa Madigan in 06-1029
Appellee's brief due 3/15/06 for IL Retail Merchants in
06-1012, for Video Software Deale in 06-1012, for
Entertainment Softwa in 06-1012, for IL Retail Merchants in
06-1029, for Video Software Deale in 06-1029, for
Entertainment Softwa in 06-1029. Appellant's reply brief
due 3/29/06 for Rod R. Blagojevich in 06-1012, for Lisa
Madigan in 06-1029. (See order for further details.) (kell)
[06-1012 06-1029]
Posted by: Psyae | Jan 12, 2006 at 12:01
Hey, thanks so much for putting these up, Dmitri! Downloading the lot -- I don't know if I'll ever be able to use them for teaching purposes, but it sure would be fun to do that.
No giggling from me about your starting point -- evidence and final determination questions in legal disputes vs empirical research are radically different enterprises. And they should be -- if law had to be as tentative and rigorous as science needs to be before making final judgments, we wouldn't have law.
I feel your perplexity though. I remember way back when, I read my first judicial opinion as an English major. My thought was "That's a strange way to formulate a narrative" But then I realized that, based on that narrative formulation, a person was sentenced to life imprisonment.
While I was practicing, I found it not rare for thoughtful left-brained expert witnesses to be visibly disillusioned when they realized that the average judge wasn't a polymath and had only the vaguest notion of the subject they had devoted their lives to understanding. But this person, and not either of the experts who actually understood the facts, would be wielding the coercive power of the state in a way that would have substantial implications for an issue/technology/practice that was important to them.
Posted by: greglas | Jan 12, 2006 at 12:19
I posted the full docket for the appeal here:
http://psyae.blogspot.com/2006/01/esa-suit.html
Posted by: Psyae | Jan 12, 2006 at 12:38
Mock trials are one of the funnest things to do in a class that's too big to do discussions but that badly need interactivity.
That's further commentary on the idea that having trials is more fun, game-wise, than having conferences. If trials are more fun, then why DO we disseminate knowledge through the conference format? How dull. The lawyers are on to something.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Jan 12, 2006 at 13:42
Our division chair agrees with you, Ted. We're going to have some game policy "debates" at ICA this year (I'm moderating). He's going to provide wine and tapas . . .
Beat that, lawyers, economists, sociologists, psychologists and educators!
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Jan 12, 2006 at 14:08
At conferences, I generally try to resist the urge to say "Isn't it true that, despite your claims, you've never actually done/studied/created X?!?" It's an urge I often have to resist; I try to be more civilized than that. ;)
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Jan 12, 2006 at 15:50
Isn't that just the greatest analogy, though?
The courtroom is a game. =P
*slinks off*
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 12, 2006 at 19:39
Chris Crawford has said as much. *ducks*. In Canada, we have a show called "This is Wonderland" which is basically about how the legal system becomes an insane asylum when lawyers and beuraucrats start to believe that what they do is anything other than a game.
Posted by: Mr. Falcon | Jan 12, 2006 at 21:27
Yeah, Huizinga said that too.
Posted by: greglas | Jan 12, 2006 at 22:41
Very interesting site I congratulate
Posted by: Cell | Jul 31, 2006 at 05:55
Very interesting site I congratulate
Posted by: Cell | Jul 31, 2006 at 05:55