Supreme Court Strikes Down California Violent Video Game Law

Tweet

It’s a good day to be a gamer, because the Supreme Court has ruled that video games deserve the same First Amendment protections as other forms of entertainment and expression. This particular ruling is on Brown v. EMA (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) a case heard last fall that disputes a 2005 California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

Thankfully though, that law has been struck down, due to a majority vote by seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices with only two – Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer – dissenting. Essentially, the court ruled that video games as a form of expression can’t be regulated because of their content. Justice Scalia, who delivered the opinion of the court, wrote that restricting the sale of violent video games doesn’t make much sense when we’ve got grotesque depictions in the fairytales penned by the Grimm Brothers, and are handing minors graphic books as assigned reading in high school English classes.

Of course, the argument is that video games are more interactive than books, so instead of reading a description of a murder, we’re actually carrying out those dastardly deeds (which destroys society, eventually). I’ve never thought this argument held much water, since there are plenty of books and movies just as engrossing as video games, and also since most of us, both minor and adult, know the differences between reality and fantasy. While it’s true that you may have some difficulty explaining that difference to a five-year-old, it’s hard to believe that this same five-year-old is the member of the household heading to GameStop to pick up Black Ops and Halo.

Whatever the reason for this law, it’s been ruled unconstitutional. Though it’s a pretty big win for the video game industry, it’s an even bigger one for the First Amendment, with the court’s opinion stating:

The most basic principle — that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content — is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

The full PDF of the court’s ruling can be found via the source link below. It’s a long one, but it’s a worthwhile read if you’ve got 15 minutes or so to spare. What do you think about this case – do you agree with the court’s ruling, or do you think they should have given California the go ahead to restrict the sale of mature video games? Tell us what you think in the comments section below!