Supreme Court to take up sale of violent video games to minors

Free speech advocates and the video game industry argue that violent images and ideas are not obscene and cannot be banned.

“California was not the first state to try to restrict distribution of video games it considered too violent for minors. Such laws have proved politically popular, but every one has been struck down under the First Amendment,” wrote Washington lawyer Paul Smith in his brief on behalf of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

Federal appeals courts in Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and New York have refused to uphold similar restrictions against violent material that did not involve sexually explicit content. In addition to California, nine other states have enacted similar bans and had them struck down as unconstitutional.

Judge Whyte ruled that the California ban and label requirement violated First Amendment protections of free speech. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed.

Lawyers for the state argued that the courts should approach the potential harm to minors of violent video games in the same way that courts have allowed age-restrictions on the sale of sexually-explicit magazines to minors.

“Violent video games can be just as harmful to minors as sexual material and should receive no greater protection under the First Amendment,” wrote Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, in his brief on behalf of California.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit said it was refusing to “boldly go where no court has gone before.” The panel said it was declining the state’s invitation to expand and redefine obscenity to include violent material as well as sexually-explicit material.

The appeals court rejected suggestions by the state that violent video games can produce violent teenagers. “None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm,” wrote Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan in the Ninth Circuit opinion.

The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that California could rely on less restrictive methods to protect minors from violent images in the games. The judges said the state could improve an existing voluntary rating system, enhance educational efforts, and support parental controls and involvement.

The case will be set for oral argument sometime during the court’s next term, which begins in October.

Related:

Violent video games – the myths and the facts

Why California's case against violent video games is a long shot

Blog: Modern Warfare 2 airport terror attack stirs controversy

Previous

1 | 2