Supreme Court Strikes Down California Law

Avatar image for patrickklepek
patrickklepek

6835

Forum Posts

1300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By patrickklepek
No Caption Provided

In a 7-2 decision announced early today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to defend the Constitutional rights of games.

The court struck down the California law from 2005 that would have made selling violent video games to minors illegal, essentially placing the medium into the same category as pornography.

The court opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagan agreed. Justices Thomas and Bryer filed dissenting opinions.

"The Act does not comport with the First Amendment," reads the decision. "Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech...do not vary with a new and different communication medium."

Given that the courts have not blocked violent content in other mediums, California was unable prove why the interactive nature of video games was different than music and movies. The court was also not persuaded by the evidence provided regarding the psychological impact of games. In fact, the court found it curious California would not include other kinds of media under this law.

"Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively," said the court. "Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."

The court agreed with the video game industry that the existing self regulatory board, the Entertainment Software Rattings Board, was doing its job--the government wasn't needed.

"Banning violent games would have necessitated bans elsewhere," argued the court. "California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore."

As for the interactive nature of the medium, the court (rather hilariously) pointed to choose-your-own adventure books as evidence that such entertainment already exists.

At points, the court--Scalia, specifically--seems to mock the California law. If video games are such a harm, why would California not go further in preventing society from engaging with them?

== TEASER ==
The interactive nature of games was not a compelling argument for most of the court.
The interactive nature of games was not a compelling argument for most of the court.

"The Act is also seriously underinclusive in another respect--and a respect that renders irrelevant the contentions of the concurrence and the dissents that video games are qualitatively different from other portrayals of violence. The California Legislature is perfectly willing to leave this dangerous, mind-altering material in the hands of children so long as one parent (or even an aunt or uncle) says it’s OK. And there are not even any requirements as to how this parental or avuncular relationship is to be verified; apparently the child’s or putative parent’s, aunt’s, or uncle’s say-so suffices. That is not how one addresses a serious social problem."

That ultimately became one half of the court's real problem with California's proposal. If this is a serious social harm, the law doesn't go far enough, as it doesn't restrict other mediums. Combined with the potential infringements on First Amendment rights, it had to be struck down.

"The overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other," the court concluded. "Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny."

In Justice Alito's concurrence, however, he voiced some disagreement, wondering why the court would be so quick to believe a new medium deserves the same protections as the old ones.

"We should make every effort to understand the new technology," said Alito. We should take into account the possibility that developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time. We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar. [...] There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show."

The ESRB is enough of a self-regulatory body, argued the majority's opinion.
The ESRB is enough of a self-regulatory body, argued the majority's opinion.

In fact, Alito left the door wide open for another challenge.

"I would hold only that the particular law at issue here fails to provide the clear notice that the Constitution requires," said Alito. "I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem. If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us."

While Alito sided with the majority (with a critique), Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer were the two dissenting votes. Thomas argued that, back to the founders, children require special treatment. For several pages, Thomas performs a history lesson of the country's prior views of raising children. Thomas believed the California law hardly infringed upon First Amendment rights.

"All that the law does is prohibit the direct sale or rental of a violent video game to a minor by someone other than the minor’s parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal guardian," said Thomas. "Where a minor has a parent or guardian, as is usually true, the law does not prevent that minor from obtaining a violent video game with his parent’s or guardian’s help. In the typical case, the only speech affected is speech that bypasses a minor’s parent or guardian. Because such speech does not fall within 'the freedom of speech' as originally understood, California’s law does not ordinarily implicate the First Amendment and is not facially unconstitutional."

Breyer's dissent cites numerous psychological studies favoring that games cause more harm than other media. In the majority opinion, the court rejected California's claims to this.

"This case is ultimately less about censorship than it is about education," wrote Breyer. "Our Constitution cannot succeed in securing the liberties it seeks to protect unless we can raise future generations committed cooperatively to mak­ing our system of government work. Education, however, is about choices. Sometimes, children need to learn by making choices for themselves. Other times, choices are made for children--by their parents, by their teachers, and by the people acting democratically through their governments. In my view, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here--a choice not to have their children buy ex­tremely violent, interactive video games, which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of harm to those children."

For now, however, games are protected speech, an important victory for the medium.

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," reads one of the footnotes in the majority opinion. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny."

Amen.

You can read the entire court opinion, including dissents, right over here.

Avatar image for patrickklepek
patrickklepek

6835

Forum Posts

1300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By patrickklepek
No Caption Provided

In a 7-2 decision announced early today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to defend the Constitutional rights of games.

The court struck down the California law from 2005 that would have made selling violent video games to minors illegal, essentially placing the medium into the same category as pornography.

The court opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagan agreed. Justices Thomas and Bryer filed dissenting opinions.

"The Act does not comport with the First Amendment," reads the decision. "Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech...do not vary with a new and different communication medium."

Given that the courts have not blocked violent content in other mediums, California was unable prove why the interactive nature of video games was different than music and movies. The court was also not persuaded by the evidence provided regarding the psychological impact of games. In fact, the court found it curious California would not include other kinds of media under this law.

"Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively," said the court. "Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."

The court agreed with the video game industry that the existing self regulatory board, the Entertainment Software Rattings Board, was doing its job--the government wasn't needed.

"Banning violent games would have necessitated bans elsewhere," argued the court. "California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore."

As for the interactive nature of the medium, the court (rather hilariously) pointed to choose-your-own adventure books as evidence that such entertainment already exists.

At points, the court--Scalia, specifically--seems to mock the California law. If video games are such a harm, why would California not go further in preventing society from engaging with them?

== TEASER ==
The interactive nature of games was not a compelling argument for most of the court.
The interactive nature of games was not a compelling argument for most of the court.

"The Act is also seriously underinclusive in another respect--and a respect that renders irrelevant the contentions of the concurrence and the dissents that video games are qualitatively different from other portrayals of violence. The California Legislature is perfectly willing to leave this dangerous, mind-altering material in the hands of children so long as one parent (or even an aunt or uncle) says it’s OK. And there are not even any requirements as to how this parental or avuncular relationship is to be verified; apparently the child’s or putative parent’s, aunt’s, or uncle’s say-so suffices. That is not how one addresses a serious social problem."

That ultimately became one half of the court's real problem with California's proposal. If this is a serious social harm, the law doesn't go far enough, as it doesn't restrict other mediums. Combined with the potential infringements on First Amendment rights, it had to be struck down.

"The overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other," the court concluded. "Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny."

In Justice Alito's concurrence, however, he voiced some disagreement, wondering why the court would be so quick to believe a new medium deserves the same protections as the old ones.

"We should make every effort to understand the new technology," said Alito. We should take into account the possibility that developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time. We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar. [...] There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show."

The ESRB is enough of a self-regulatory body, argued the majority's opinion.
The ESRB is enough of a self-regulatory body, argued the majority's opinion.

In fact, Alito left the door wide open for another challenge.

"I would hold only that the particular law at issue here fails to provide the clear notice that the Constitution requires," said Alito. "I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem. If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us."

While Alito sided with the majority (with a critique), Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer were the two dissenting votes. Thomas argued that, back to the founders, children require special treatment. For several pages, Thomas performs a history lesson of the country's prior views of raising children. Thomas believed the California law hardly infringed upon First Amendment rights.

"All that the law does is prohibit the direct sale or rental of a violent video game to a minor by someone other than the minor’s parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal guardian," said Thomas. "Where a minor has a parent or guardian, as is usually true, the law does not prevent that minor from obtaining a violent video game with his parent’s or guardian’s help. In the typical case, the only speech affected is speech that bypasses a minor’s parent or guardian. Because such speech does not fall within 'the freedom of speech' as originally understood, California’s law does not ordinarily implicate the First Amendment and is not facially unconstitutional."

Breyer's dissent cites numerous psychological studies favoring that games cause more harm than other media. In the majority opinion, the court rejected California's claims to this.

"This case is ultimately less about censorship than it is about education," wrote Breyer. "Our Constitution cannot succeed in securing the liberties it seeks to protect unless we can raise future generations committed cooperatively to mak­ing our system of government work. Education, however, is about choices. Sometimes, children need to learn by making choices for themselves. Other times, choices are made for children--by their parents, by their teachers, and by the people acting democratically through their governments. In my view, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here--a choice not to have their children buy ex­tremely violent, interactive video games, which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of harm to those children."

For now, however, games are protected speech, an important victory for the medium.

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," reads one of the footnotes in the majority opinion. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny."

Amen.

You can read the entire court opinion, including dissents, right over here.

Avatar image for therealminime
therealminime

287

Forum Posts

730

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 36

#2  Edited By therealminime

Thank god.

Avatar image for birchman
birchman

853

Forum Posts

7695

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#3  Edited By birchman

Good stuff.

Avatar image for bulletproofmonk
BulletproofMonk

2749

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#4  Edited By BulletproofMonk

Video games!

Avatar image for simplexity
Simplexity

1430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Simplexity

Well, great I guess, wouldn't have really mattered if it passed though.

Avatar image for re_player1
RE_Player1

8074

Forum Posts

1047

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By RE_Player1
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA (I'm Canadian)
Avatar image for quantical
Quantical

793

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Quantical

Sanity prevails then, thankfully.

Avatar image for sliced_bread
Sliced_Bread

157

Forum Posts

2860

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#8  Edited By Sliced_Bread

2 people played Duke.

Avatar image for kyreo
Kyreo

4680

Forum Posts

5544

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#9  Edited By Kyreo

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Avatar image for icicle7x3
icicle7x3

1280

Forum Posts

1260

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By icicle7x3

FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!

Avatar image for deegee
DeeGee

2193

Forum Posts

54

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#11  Edited By DeeGee

Now those pornography games are justified.

wait

Avatar image for deactivated-5a0917a2494ce
deactivated-5a0917a2494ce

1349

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 4

I though it was going to be a 5-4 decision and would be struck down. The 7-2 is surprising and heartening.

Avatar image for animasta
Animasta

14948

Forum Posts

3563

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

#13  Edited By Animasta

big fuckin deal

Avatar image for shisnopi
Shisnopi

83

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#14  Edited By Shisnopi

and that's how the cookie crumbles.

Avatar image for cooljammer00
cooljammer00

3187

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By cooljammer00

Superman Lives!

Avatar image for longmasterwolf
LongMasterWolf

244

Forum Posts

290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#17  Edited By LongMasterWolf

I'm in history class, my prof just checked the comp and started talking about this. feelsgoodman.gif

Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#18  Edited By Winternet

No Supreme Court should have all that POWER!

Avatar image for dungbootle
dungbootle

2502

Forum Posts

19953

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By dungbootle

The good guys win!

Avatar image for raye
Raye

54

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#20  Edited By Raye

Great news!

Avatar image for christaran
ChrisTaran

2054

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

#21  Edited By ChrisTaran

What a relief! Glad there is some sanity in the Supreme Court.

Avatar image for colonel_fury
Colonel_Fury

462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#22  Edited By Colonel_Fury

Hurray! Although, I'm an adult and live in Canada and could have bought them regardlessly!!

Avatar image for monkfishesq
monkfishesq

334

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#23  Edited By monkfishesq

I thought it was already illegal to sell games to children that are under the certificate rating?

Avatar image for kibbs
kibbs

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#24  Edited By kibbs

Video games! Fuck yeah!

Avatar image for epicbenjamin
EpicBenjamin

754

Forum Posts

2631

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 46

#25  Edited By EpicBenjamin

Guys, I love videogames.

Avatar image for marz
Marz

6097

Forum Posts

755

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 11

#26  Edited By Marz

:)

Avatar image for metal_mills
metal_mills

3604

Forum Posts

4049

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 3

#27  Edited By metal_mills

I don't see why wanting to regulate violent games is bad. In Australia kids can't buy MA15+ games and the R18+ we all want will force that even more. There's never been a big problem with it. Or in fact any problem at all.

Avatar image for mrmazz
MrMazz

1262

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#28  Edited By MrMazz

YEEEEEEEAAAAAH

Avatar image for matoya
matoya

775

Forum Posts

1028

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#29  Edited By matoya

There's already ratings on games. 
 
this is stupid

Avatar image for skywarpgold
Skywarpgold

206

Forum Posts

1316

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

#30  Edited By Skywarpgold

Good to know not everyone's crazy!

Avatar image for kollay
kollay

2170

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#31  Edited By kollay

I love the smell of LAW in the morning.

Avatar image for overwatch
Overwatch

297

Forum Posts

803

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#32  Edited By Overwatch

Yes!

Avatar image for moody_yeti
Moody_yeti

399

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#33  Edited By Moody_yeti

/fist bump

Avatar image for vigilance
Vigilance

307

Forum Posts

345

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#34  Edited By Vigilance

Maybe Leland Yee will GTF away now.

Avatar image for mosespippy
mosespippy

4751

Forum Posts

2163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 8

#35  Edited By mosespippy
@Prodstep said:

Well, great I guess, wouldn't have really mattered if it passed though.

If it had passed other states would have made similar laws and then developers would self censor their games before release to make them all T rated. It matters more than you realize. 
Avatar image for phatseejay
PhatSeeJay

3331

Forum Posts

9727

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 17

#36  Edited By PhatSeeJay

Good show.

Avatar image for macog
macog

109

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#37  Edited By macog

Excellent

Avatar image for jeffsekai
Jeffsekai

7162

Forum Posts

1060

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#38  Edited By Jeffsekai

yay

Avatar image for pepper_2000
pepper_2000

304

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By pepper_2000

'MERICA!
Avatar image for bladeofcreation
BladeOfCreation

2491

Forum Posts

27

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#40  Edited By BladeOfCreation

Nice...and I am surprised it was not more like a 5-4 decision.

Avatar image for dirkdiggy
dirkdiggy

19

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#41  Edited By dirkdiggy

that's my Summer Jam

Avatar image for max_hydrogen
Max_Hydrogen

825

Forum Posts

455

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#42  Edited By Max_Hydrogen

Can we FINALLY put this shit behind us...?

Avatar image for citizenkane
citizenkane

10894

Forum Posts

29122

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 106

#43  Edited By citizenkane

Do you know what this calls for? A sexy party!

Avatar image for brake
Brake

1301

Forum Posts

14420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

#44  Edited By Brake

Let the word ring out from this day:

Video games - better than pornography

Fuck yeah!

Avatar image for nocall
Nocall

423

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By Nocall

7-2! The system works!

Avatar image for twisted_scot
Twisted_Scot

1213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#46  Edited By Twisted_Scot

Wonder how much in pay-offs the industry went through in the last few days? :)

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

#47  Edited By Video_Game_King
Avatar image for emmzyne
Emmzyne

23

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By Emmzyne

YEY. 
 
Will this be the last we hear of it, though? Ho hum.

Avatar image for machofantastico
MachoFantastico

6762

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 4

#49  Edited By MachoFantastico

Woo! Even though I'm not an American stuff like this as the tendency to travel overseas so glad it's been shot down.

Avatar image for bricewgilbert
bricewgilbert

270

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 25

#50  Edited By bricewgilbert

Love to see who the 2 who voted to uphold the law were.