The video game industry and the First Amendment each just took another hit to the gut.

Late last month, Senior United States District Judge Stephen Limbaugh upheld a St. Louis county ordinance that allows local governments to restrict children?s access to violent or sexually explicit video games. This seems fine on the surface, until one considers his reasoning for ruling against the Interactive Digital Software Association, which brought the suit.

According to an Associated Press story on the decision, Limbaugh reviewed four games and found “no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures.” This statement is, to put it bluntly, uneducated bulls–t. The problem here is in the games reviewed for the decision. The titles Limbaugh looked over were “Doom,” “Mortal Kombat,” “Fear Effect” and “Resident of Evil Creek.”

These choices were likely not by accident. The first two games are, admittedly, gratuitously violent and offer no ideas or message whatsoever, though neither title is really relevant now; though influential, both titles have long since been tossed aside by the gaming populace for much bigger and better things.

“Fear Effect” is a gritty and stylish piece of noir fluff that sold itself heavily on its mature content and took players on a trip through literal hell, though arguments could be made either way for its storytelling merit.

The last example isn?t even a game; one can only assume that the correct title is one of Capcom?s “Resident Evil” games, a series that has intentionally been modeled on classic, schlocky zombie-horror films such as George Romero?s “Dawn of the Dead.”

The games “reviewed” (does this mean “played,” or “movie clips watched from” or maybe “box description read”?) by Limbaugh are among the silliest and least-intelligent representatives of the medium available. This judge damns the entire field of interactive games as worthless in the eyes of the U.S. Constitution based on some of its shoddiest examples.

An apt parallel would be to dismiss the entire breadth and width of filmmaking as without artistic or social merit, and of being incapable of such, on the basis of watching “Friday the 13th,” “Deepthroat” and “Rambo.” These films are in no way representative of filmmaking as a form of media, and a value decision made based on such an anemic viewing list ignores every masterpiece ever put to celluloid by a Spielberg, a Kubrick or a Scorcese.

Just as with movies, not all games are alike, nor created equal. Take 1999?s multiple award-winning PC game “Deus Ex,” for example, a game which skillfully weaves every hackneyed conspiracy theory of the last few hundred years, from the Knights Templar to Area 51, into a fascinating and cohesive tale of vast conspiracy, behind-the-scenes government manipulation and social and technological ethics.

“Deus Ex” isn?t the only game to deal with high-handed issues, either; Squaresoft?s “Xenogears,” congealed the collective ideas of pretty much every major school of philosophical, psychological and religious thought into a 50-hour epic that examined, if somewhat clumsily, questions of the mind, God and the church. Though juvenile by any academic standard, that the game tries to explore these concepts at all immediately puts the lie to Limbaugh?s ruling. And there are more examples.

Konami?s extremely popular “Metal Gear Solid” series of games include about eight to 10 hours of story and character development in each 12 to 15 hour installment. A good portion of those hours are filled with inter-character debate on nuclear proliferation, genetic engineering and cloning issues, with a central plot point being censorship and freedom of speech!

Squaresoft?s recent “Final Fantasy X” explores questions of death, existence, tolerance, religious zealotry and the afterlife throughout its 40-hour running length, just as its predecessors have dealt with friendship, love, loyalty, self-identity and growing up. Do these sound like games with “no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech”? I didn?t think so. But a serious question arises, one already asked by online gaming comic, “Penny Arcade”: if Limbaugh truly believes that video games are incapable of being speech, why does he, or anyone else, care who plays them?

Should video games getFirst Amendment protection? Sound off to Justin Hoeger at forum@statehornet .com.