|
"Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas -- and even social messages -- through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world),” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. “That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.”
Arguing against the 7-2 majority decision, Justice Stephen Breyer cited studies that he said showed violent video games were associated with aggressive behavior.
“Unlike the majority,” Justice Breyer wrote, “I would find sufficient grounds in these studies and expert opinions for this court to defer to an elected legislature’s conclusion that the video games in question are particularly likely to harm children.”
Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, arguing that the authors of the First Amendment did not intend for minors to access speech "without going through their parents or guardians."
The billion dollar video game industry fought the ban and welcomed the ruling.
Attempt to bar minors from buying violent games made
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the matter of Brown v. Entertainment Merchant’s Association (the original plaintiff was then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,) |
|
|
In 2005, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that imposed $1,000 fines on stores that sold violent video games to anyone under 18.
Schwarzenegger, who made millions acting in violent movies such as "Terminator" and "Conan the Barbarian," joined several governors who argued that states have the right to protect minors from violent and disturbing content.
The law defined violent games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that was “patently offensive” -- definitions drawn from a 1968 Supreme Court ruling, Ginsberg v. New York, that allowed limits on sales of "girlie magazines" to minors.
What kind of content can the government ban?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Comic books were once the target of government bans. |
|
|
The latest ruling is part of a long debate about how to protect children from perils seen in new technology. In 1880, a group of adults tried to block true-crime novels, fearing that the courts would be "thronged with infant criminals -- with baby felons." In 1954, the target was comic books.
In the video game decision, Brown vs. Entertainment Merchant Association, Justice Scalia wrote that only a few kinds of speech, like incitement, obscenity and fighting words, are beyond the protection of the First Amendment.
Justice Samuel Alito voted with the majority, but said Justice Scalia's decision was too quick to dismiss the warning signs in current video games.
Soon, Alito argued, children might play three-dimensional high-definition games wearing equipment that will allow them to “actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head” of a victim.
However, until there are studies proving a connection between violent games and violent behavior, "disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression," Scalia countered.
The video game ruling joins several other recent decisions protecting free speech, including striking down a law making it a crime to buy or sell depictions of animal cruelty and a law limiting the amount of money companies can donate to political campaigns. |
Joplin was able to rise from the ashes because of help from everyone. And I am eternally grateful to anyone who made that possible.
