In an interesting turn of events, a Federal Judge in Louisiana, USA, was asked to ban violent video games state wide.

Why did they want the ban? Many said that the interactive violence made them inherently more likely to turn people to violence.

The Judge's view on all of this? "Depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection." He compared video games to literature, saying "It is the interactive aspect of literature that makes it successful — 'draw[ing] the reader into the story, mak[ing] him identify with the characters, invit[ing] him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader's own."

Sorry, Louisiana. Violent games are here to stay, just like the violence in text books, novels, biographies, and many other forms of interaction.

The lawyers that were fighting for this ruling to happen were found to email each other not long after the ban was denied. The first of three e-mails included here was sent last night from Deputy Attorney General Burton Guidry to Rep. Roy Burrell, sponsor of the ill-fated bill:

"For your information this is the courts ruling which was issued today. I anticipate a motion for summary judgment to be filed by the plaintiffs in the next two weeks. Unfortunately we have no facts or experts to contradict their motions due to Mr. Thompson's reluctance to help. We have very little choice but to wait for the bomb to fall."

Next, Burrell to Jack Thompson, this morning:

"If you have not seen the judge ruling, here it is. What do you suggest? I have talked to Guidry on this matter and express my disappointment of not getting everyone input before putting for the argument, not that it made the difference in the judge's ruling. It was expressed to him that since we all had started out together pushing the bill through the legislature, I wanted us to continue our fight together."

"Because this was not adequately done, I have requested that Mr. Guidry's office arrange a conference call to include Terry Ryder if mediation is required. He will await my reply. That is my last ditch effort to save my bill in court. It deserves a try. There is no further need for name calling and ill-will. The odds are already stacked against us. If we are ultimately defeated, let's go down fighting together, for our children, Louisiana and nation. That is the least I can ask of you and for my constituents. Let's not defeat yourselves."

Thompson replies to Burrell late Friday afternoon:

"I'll help if there is a real commitment to win this thing. But the Governor is obviously not interested, as her office has ignored all my warnings that the preliminary injunction was going to be entered and that Foti's office as acting as if it couldn't care less. I don't put my shoulder to the wheel with people who don't care. Lives are at stake here, and it looks like the executive branch of the Louisiana government thinks this is one big joke."

Finally, Thompson again attacks the A.G.'s office in an e-mail to Gov. Blanco:

"...I hope you will finally take to heart my warnings... that Attorney General Foti and his office were dropping the ball on this matter, either by incompetence or design... Please instruct Mr. Foti's office either to start doing a decent job in defending this constitutional law, or tell him, as the Apostle Paul might, to get the Hell out of the way."

There's one important caveat here, and that's the fact that it can not assured that these are the only e-mails exchanged between the parties; they're just the ones Game Politics has been shown by an agenda-driven source, Jack Thompson.

Tags : Ban : Federal Court : Jack Thompson : Law : Louisiana : Violence