http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...8.html?mod=e2fb

 

By BRENT KENDALL

 

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a California law banning the sale of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional.

 

 

The court, in a 7-2 vote, said the law violated First Amendment free-speech protections. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices.

 

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a California law banning the sale of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the result but expressed some disagreement with the majority's opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented.

 

California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive behavior.

 

The case carried considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as Activision Blizzard Inc.'s "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.

 

Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect. The industry says American consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.

 

One of the industry's biggest sellers, Take-Two Interactive Software's "Grand Theft Auto," is rated "mature."

 

It isn't clear which games would have been affected by California's law, which defines a violent videogame as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

 

To have been subject to the sales ban, the game must have lacked "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."

 

The law would have imposed a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Interesting that the decision didn't follow the "party line" like so many others seem to. I agree with the decision, but find it odd when 9 people get to decide whether saying "f***" or showing a .2 seconds worth of Janet Jackson's nipple is somehow more dangerous than violent video games.

I actually don't really know where I stand with this one. I want to agree with it, but if we're talking about free speech, why can the state and/or federal government say that a kid can't buy porn, but they can't follow the same principle with violent video games? It's that whole bizarre "even mild references to sex are bad, but even the worst violence is ok" paradigm we have in our society.

I actually don't really know where I stand with this one. I want to agree with it, but if we're talking about free speech, why can the state and/or federal government say that a kid can't buy porn, but they can't follow the same principle with violent video games? It's that whole bizarre "even mild references to sex are bad, but even the worst violence is ok" paradigm we have in our society.

 

The other thing I was thinking was R rated movies.

The other thing I was thinking was R rated movies.

 

Movie ratings aren't enforced by law, the theaters just use them so they don't have to listen to parents complain or get sued.

Movie ratings aren't enforced by law, the theaters just use them so they don't have to listen to parents complain or get sued.

 

Still the same idea. They are banning under 17 year olds from obtaining whatever it is they want to legally consume.

This will open up a huge can of worms with MPAA ratings and adult erotica.

 

Violence? YES!

 

Sex? NO WAY!

 

Seems hypocritical to me.

This will open up a huge can of worms with MPAA ratings and adult erotica.

 

Violence? YES!

 

Sex? NO WAY!

The court has already ruled on all of that though, they established the "I'll know it when I see it" precedent back in the 80's.

Hard to believe that you can watch a guy get his arm lopped off, but not an uncovered female breast.

Still the same idea. They are banning under 17 year olds from obtaining whatever it is they want to legally consume.

 

Well, the Cali law was trying to make it illegal for them to consume it. Video game stores, like movie theaters with tickets, can still refuse to sell the games to minors.

Well, the Cali law was trying to make it illegal for them to consume it. Video game stores, like movie theaters with tickets, can still refuse to sell the games to minors.

If a theater chooses not to enforce the ratings system, do they face legal issues? Or is it strictly a private company thing?

If a theater chooses not to enforce the ratings system, do they face legal issues? Or is it strictly a private company thing?

 

It's a voluntary system. I suppose they could be sued by an angry parent if their snowflake saw something which offended them.

It's a voluntary system. I suppose they could be sued by an angry parent if their snowflake saw something which offended them.

If they can get sued then its a legal matter somewhere.