Violent Video Game Debate May Elevate to High Court
Fueled by the agendas of various parental groups and public officials, the regulation of violent video game sales to minors has long been the center of debate between those that support legislation and the Entertainment Software Association. This past Tuesday, however, the United States Supreme Court met to decided whether it would hear arguments on an appeal of a California law that would prohibit minors from purchasing such games.
The law in question, which restricted sales to anyone under 18 and required a nice 2″x2″ label with “18″ written on it to be prominently displayed on the packaging of violent games, was first signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger back in 2005. Citing the First Amendment, the law was ruled unconstitutional a few years later in 2007 after the ESA sued the state. After an appeal by the state in 2009, it was decided by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the law violated the rights of minors outlined in the First and 14th Amendments. Despite not exactly having extra money to throw around, the state of California appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court in May.
Historically, the notion that video games fall under the protection of free speech has largely contributed to the courts rejection of proposed legislation. California, however, argues that the correlation between violence found in video games and violence pertaining to real-world events is concrete. In contrast, the video game industry firmly states that studies which aim to prove such a link do little to achieve their goal.
The logic behind California’s push for legislation in the video game industry is made clear in this statement made by Gov. Schwarzenegger:
“By prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children under the age of 18 and requiring these games to be clearly labeled, this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids”.
The foundation of reasoning on which this law is based is fundamentally flawed (alliteration FTW!). If anything, it’s a limitless template for whatever a state might want to regulate on any given day. Considering the potential future implications this law may have, it’s nice to know we’re not the only ones who feel this way. After overturning the law in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, Judge Alex Kozinski asked the state:
“Is there anything out of limits for the legislature to prohibit to minors? What about games where people eat unhealthy foods and get fat? … Why not a law targeting games that teach children bad living habits, such as eating unhealthy food or using plastic bags?”
We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves. In any case (no pun intended), the Supreme Court’s decision to either hear oral arguments from both sides or allow the previous ruling to stand has not been released, but we’ll let you know of any details as soon as they surface.
[Source]
11 Responses to “Violent Video Game Debate May Elevate to High Court”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Better informed decisions… if parents made good decisions in the first place, it wouldn’t even be brought up. Comics, then television, then games. They’re always looking for something to blame while avoiding their incompetency.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 PM
People can’t sell tobacco to minors, can’t sell alchohol to minors, they can’t sell R rated movies to minors, but of course all the violence, sex, slavery, and statements that rape is ok as long as you pay 50 silver coins for the virgin bride to be your wife, as well as multiple bigoted passages are perfectly ok to so many of these people.
There’s nothing wrong with video games. It’s all parental faults. The kids that shouldn’t be playing these games in the first place, will get a parent or friend to buy it for them anyway. Laws like this are just made from pathetic weak minded individuals who love to rail about personal responsibility but never really seem to show it.
Case in point Mr. Terminator has no place telling ANYONE what violence they are and are not allowed to enjoy in a victimless manner.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Really? so now we’re going to have a big ass sticker on the box ruining our box art?
….
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 PM
So much for good looking box art. I’m sure the best of artists can work with the “big 18 box” and incorporate it into the box art.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 AM
he making California look like it was a great state in the first part and it never had violence to but now they are are saying that is video games fault of why they are so many crimes in California. thats what i call B.S. thats state had violence in the 80’s,90’s and even now, it all comes down to the parents thats all.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 AM
“this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids”.
If parents need a law to make better decisions, they’re bad parents. If you can’t think to ask what the M means, or read what it says under the M then you have problems indeed.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 PM
^This^
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 PM
UltimaChocochu most of the parents don’t even give a fuck. They’re the kind of parents that end up letting their 15 year old kid stay out till 2 a.m. and don’t even notice when he has a hang over the next morning and then wonder why he’s an alchoholic 2 years later.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 PM
They should just make a Poster like saying “Please read ESRB rating” or something. It would look ugly on my game case.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 PM
FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with kirobz about the Please read ESRB rating THAT IS CLEARLY ON THE FUCKING BOX THAT SAYS EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK THEM THEY JUST WANNA CONTROL EVERYTHING
October 5th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Wow Falcon, flip out. Don’t forget, everyone here is on your side. dude. Anyway, its all because parents want to use video games to babysit their kids. When something goes wrong, they need somewhere to point a finger, and nobody ever wants to point that finger at themselves. Let’s point it at the “babysitter”: modern media. Its pretty sad that people spend so much time arguing this point, when they could spend that time actually watching their kids and talking to them about right and wrong, fantasy and reality, morality, and the fact that its different in a game and why, or just simply regulating what they’re allowed to see and play.