Games like the one pictured here and below were a topic of controversy in California recently.
On Monday, June 27, after more than five years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to strike down a law signed by then California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. In a decision split 7-2, the court decided that a law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.
It was a landmark case, deciding that video games are protected under the First Amendment and that the government has no place in regulating their sale or distribution.
The decision of the court came down to the fact that California failed to prove why video games should be given certain restrictions when the state currently does not restrict the sale of violent content in other mediums such as books, movies or music. The state also failed to prove what makes the interactive nature of video games different from other mediums. Unable to persuade the court with evidence of video games’ psychological impact or any basis to consider video games a special case when it comes to violent content, the court was forced to rule against the state.
The opinion of the court, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, reads, “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary’ with a new and different communication medium.”
The opinion is littered with choice quotes, references and multiple examples that video games require no exception, that the industry’s self-regulation through the Entertainment Software Rating Board is adequate. It even mentions “Choose-Your-Own-Adventure” books when speaking to the interactive nature of video games, pointing out that video games are not entirely unique in this regard.
The opinion of the court places the burden of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of parents, even mentioning that not all parents disapprove of their children consuming violent media while pointing out the vague, hypocritical nature of the law.
“Banning violent games would have necessitated bans elsewhere,” the opinion read. “California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore.”
As you can see, the real danger of the court upholding this law was the slippery slope it presented, bringing other forms of media into close scrutiny and asking why they are not also included. The law had a definite chilling effect.
According to the opinion, the law covered games “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that “(a) reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Reading that description, several games come to mind, but it leaves a vague enough impression that you’re left wondering, where exactly do you draw the line?
Personally speaking, I don’t believe children should have access to material designed for adults, violent or otherwise. However, I also don’t believe it’s the government’s place to intervene. I believe the court made the right decision. To put it another way, this was a triumph.
| Tweet | Follow @wkdr |
|
|
