Another attempt at stretching censorship to violent video games was defeated today by the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court struck down California's ban on selling minors violent video games on grounds that violent video games are subject to the same protections as any other violent material that minors can access. The law was ruled to be a violation of First Amendment rights of both the minors and the game manufacturers.
California's video game law was the legacy of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and similar laws exist in 11 other states. The statute would have required anyone found selling or renting prohibited games to minors to pay a $1,000 fine. However, since the laws came into use in 2005 they haven't been enforceable as lower courts have constantly rejected the constitutionality of the bans.
Justice Antonin Scalia, cited the various materials(movies, books, television, etc.) available to minors that are just as gory as violent video games. Scalia even went so far as to say that video games were simply the latest in a long line of media that their dissenters claim is having an adverse effect on the society and culture. Movies, books, television, even fairy tales were used as examples of approved—yet still violent, art that had been attacked as obscene.
Advocates of prohibitive laws like California's argue that the unprecedented interactivity of video games makes them different from any other medium—an opinion which Scalia dismissed as both invalid and inconsistent with the First Amendment. Books allowing the reader to plot the course have been in circulation for decades and have never been the target of such determined animosity. Critics of the games don't share the Court's belief that despite the other variables introduced by technology, it is still just a way to communicate an idea, belief, or wish, same as every story in human history, and should be protected just as fiercely as its ancestors.
The video game industry has a self-imposed rating system that clearly defines the content and intended age group on the front of the packaging. The system is very similar to the one used to grade the content of motion pictures, with an “M”(Mature, for violent or suggestive content) rating being roughly the same as an “R” rating on a film, “T” is equivalent to “PG-13”, and so on down to games made special for the Nickelodeon demographic.
Scalia's ruling also referenced the fact that the Court had never regulated the distribution of material to minors except for obscenity to keep from saddling the country with laws based on community standards. Despite the irony of the premise, the Court has held true to its track record with the defeat of the California law.
The overwhelmingly majority ruling is a victory for free speech advocates, as another form of media falls under the First Amendment's aegis. The stage is set for the 11 other states similar video game bans to have their statues challenged and potentially struck down as well. For the sake of holding true to the principles of the country's founders, they should be taken down sooner rather than later.
In many ways the hallmark of the United States is its commitment to the First Amendment. America has forever touted itself as the protector of free speech, and hunter of those who would deny their citizens that right. To do anything less than fully support it at home, would challenge the credibility of every effort ever taken to promote it abroad.
Supporting freedom of expression has always been a difficult and complex task, but its never been a task too difficult to support.
No comments:
Post a Comment