The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments and rule on proposed regulation of sales of violent video games in the state of California in the latest bout of government control vs. free speech. The ruling, which was decided on Monday, will take place at the beginning of the term sometime in October. If the Supreme Court rules for the regulation, sales and/or rental of violent video games to minors will become illegal.
The law, which also imposes more strict game labeling requirements, has been challenged by many within the industry and was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The State of California is appealing that decision, hoping to give greater assistance to parents who want to protect their children by prohibiting all sales and access to their children.
The law was actually adopted five years ago, but has yet to take effect due to the legal ramifications. The ruling for this law will be one of the Supreme Court’s greatest, and most important, challenges for legal policy on media.
With this law, the State wants to classify and regulate violent video games in the same manner that pornography is. The law would implicate the same legal ramifications to a retail outlet that sells a violent game to a minor as those applied to outlets the sell pornography to underage buyers.
Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) wrote the law and has been pushing aggressively for its passing. Yee is also a child psychologist, and has used the argument that violent video games extensively affect the young minds of children. In an interview with the California Chronicle, Yee had this to say in response:
“Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State´s compelling interest in protecting children. We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”
Despite Yee’s argument for the damaging results of exposure to violent video games, no significant evidence exists that supports or disproves his claim. This lack of evidence is the reason why the gaming industry has such an extensive rap sheet of victories in court, and is also the reason why passing this law, even in the Supreme Court, will be quite a challenge.
Many game developers and publishers have begun to rally against this law, and protests are being organized through websites like the Video Game Voters Network. No matter the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision, many people are going to be impacted. If you wish to let your voice be heard regarding the situation, the Video Game Voters Network has many resources set up for contacting the proper people.
Reality check
As a gamer, why should you be concerned about what is happening in the Supreme Court? First and foremost, having the Supreme Court of the United States call the shots on the constitutionality of banning the sales of violent video games to minors is a Big Deal™. This marks the first time the high court will rule on a video game-related case. Whatever the outcome, expect the Supreme Court’s decision to have far-reaching impacts across the industry.
As with any regulation of this magnitude, there are going to be some loopholes to regulation of violent video games. The California law does not abide by ESRB ratings when it comes to defining what a violent game is.
The current law defines a violent video game as one that involves “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”, as per California Civil Code ch. 1746 § D. Not only does this definition lead to a hefty amount of gray area surrounding the contents of video games, but it also lacks the proper definition for what the State’s appeal warrants. So a game rated M for Mature for content that has sexuality, drug use and references, and swearing, could technically still be sold to minors under this law. Enforcement would become a complete nightmare.
Many retail outlets today card younger buyers before they sell a Mature-rated title, thanks to the assistance of the ESRB guidelines. It isn’t against the law to sell these games to minors, but through solid store policy, the sale is almost always prevented. The additional regulation brought forth by this law would not only make sales prevention more difficult and confusing, but the consequences of a sale to a minor could potentially scare retailers from selling violent video games at all in the future.
The Icrontic viewpoint
CB Droege: On one hand, I think that the Supreme Court is out of touch with modern technology. Half of them don’t even know what texting is, as shown by their responses during the texting-while-driving case. On the other hand, there really isn’t anyone for them to pass the ball to.
Ryan Wilsey: I think that since most retail establishments police themselves over the sales of games to minors based on the game’s ESRB rating, the Supreme Court doesn’t need to get involved with the official ban-hammer.
Robert Hallock: On principle, I don’t think that we should be legislating what games can and cannot be sold to minors. If stores want to forbid sale, fine, but I think it should be a parental decision. That said, I would hope that the SCOTUS has some sort of power to order a public vote on the matter, rather than tying up the courts with “BOOHOO VIOLENT GAMES ARE BAD FOR THE KIDS” laws. Let mommy and daddy decide with the law if we’re too obsessed with protecting the kids to let them do it at home.
Articles RSS