So, the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of   SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL. (which for easier purposes I will just call v. Gaming Industry). The Court’s ruling on this would decide if regulations, signed into law in 2005 in California, to fine retailers up to $1000 if violent video games are sold to minors are unconstitutional (1). This decision brings up several interesting questions.

The first question is why this is important. Basically it comes down to a precedent being set. A ruling in favor of opens the door (which would have major ramifications, in my opinion on the movie industry, TV industry and others also) to other states creating similar laws. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Gaming Industry will close the door on similar laws being proposed in the future.

The second question is, how will the Court rule? Who knows. I am not a lawyer nor have I studied law. I try to be as educated on a subject as possible, but am not an expert, but it’s still fun for me to speculate. The way I see it, will pull the old “think of the children” argument. All the while the gaming industry will cry “free speech”. The Court will probably look at other rulings in similar situations. The one that keeps popping up is the ruling in the v. Stevens case. In this case, the Court ruled that the “a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech” (2). I know that the idea of comparing video games and videos of animal cruelty seems like a stretch, but in the larger context it has several similarities. Now, the Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional and gave nearly 40 pages explaining why the statute overrides free speech (3). However within those arguments might lay the strategy as to how the court could rule in favor of . Specifically, in my opinion, if the Court can be convinced that video games can be directly proven to have a long term negative impact on minors, and/or second, if it can be proven that the creation and selling of violent video games to minors results in a vast and profitable market.

Finally, what is the potential business implication of this? Well, in the case that the Court finds in favor of , it would make sense that developers will start to shy away from producing “M” rated games because of pressure from retailers. Since its retailers who would be fined, they could severely limit the number of “M” rated titles they carry on shelves to minimize the risk of being fined, and worse yet, being branded as hurting the nations youth. Now, can the industry survive with a limited number of “M” rated games? Well, if one looks at Nintendo then the answer is yes. However, it could be argued that with a lower number of mature titles that older audiences enjoy, how the overall industry would be impacted.  

1. http://kotaku.com/5524553/us-supreme-court-to-review-game-ratings-law?skyline=true&s=i

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens

3. http://www.fepproject.org/courtbriefs/Stevens.Respondent'sBrief.pdf