The Supreme Court has recently decided to reconsider reinstating California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the US Court of Appeals threw out last year on the grounds that it violated minor’s constitutional rights under the first amendment. The law was orignially signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is pleased to see the Supreme Court revisiting the issue. It prohibits the sale or rental of violent video games to any person under the age of 18. In this case, the term violent includes “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Also, it would enforce ultra-strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers and harsh penalties for retailers who violated the law.
Shortly after being signed into effect, the law was immediately challenged on the grounds that it violated the freedom of expression and speech under the First Amendment and was blocked by a US District Court after the video game industry sued. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit threw out the law. The judge who wrote the decision that ultimately overturned the law cited no current research showing a connection between violent video games and any psychological harm to youths.
Opponents to the law claim that there is already an established ratings system (the ESRB) that warns consumers and parents about the content of the game and that it is the parent’s job keep the games out of their children’s hands if they don’t want them playing games of that nature. They also note that the rights of minor’s to free speech and freedom of expression need to be represented, especially those in creative works.
Supporters of the law claim that minor’s rights are not being trampled on, noting numerous laws that the Supreme Court has upheld barring minors from buying or having access to pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; all of which are unquestioned and unchallenged laws in our society. So why should excessively violent video games be any different. They also claim that the law does not bar parents from purchasing the video games for their children should they allow it. Additionally, they do not wish for manufacturers to stop making violent video games, just that they not be dropped directly into the hands of minors.
The choice to reconsider the law comes only weeks after the Supreme Court chose to convincingly strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The two laws both deal with the depiction of violence and the Court may be setting up to take a strong stand for the protection of free speech. The difference, however, is that the law is aimed at protecting children and minors.
Guest post by Kirby Williams. The author writes extensively on Wii video games, Wii accessories, and the entire video games industry at wiiaccessories.org.
Article Word Count: 469
Comments on this entry are closed.