The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the video game industry in a 7-2 vote on Monday morning, striking down a hotly-debated California video game law that sought to place government restrictions on the sale of violent video games to minors.
The long-awaited, landmark ruling sets a precedent for the government's role in the regulation of the video game industry, and helps place the video game industry on equal ground with other forms of media in terms of government regulation.
The Court stated that the California law "violated the First Amendment."
"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," the ruling states [PDF].
The Court also said that "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. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."
"Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint," according to the ruling.
The Court also said that California failed to show that the law met an "alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children’s access to violent videos. The video game industry’s voluntary rating system [the Entertainment Software Rating Board] already accomplishes that to a large extent."
"Moreover, as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly overinclusive, since not all of the children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so," read the ruling. "The Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny."
Gamasutra will have more on the landmark ruling later today. [UPDATE: Highlights from Scalia's lead opinion which rejected the law are now available in a separate article; supporting opinion from Justice Alito is also available, as well as dissenting opinions.]
Thomas and Breyer. The dissenting argument was that the freedom of speech shouldn't supersede parents' rights to protect their children potential harmful content. Or in other words, game publishers don't have the Constitutional right to sell their wares directly to minors without the consent of parents/guardians.
Scalia, FYI, was actually the author of the majority opinion and probably the biggest critic of the proposed California law.
A dissenting opinion always comes after the majority opinion and any concurring opinions (in the same document. A court releases one document that contains all of the differing opinions).
Click on the .pdf file above and skip to page 38 to see the first dissenting opinion.
I wonder if extreme conservatives or simply those unfamiliar with gaming will cease and deist or simply re-double their efforts @ censorship of gaming.
Personally I think a 7-2 ruling is great news and hope the aforementioned groups find better ways to spend their time.
Joe Lieberman isn't a democrat anymore; one wonders how liberal he is at this point. He switched to independent in 2006 and endorsed McCain for president in 2008. He's back in caucus with the Dem's now but I wouldn't be too disappointed with him speaking out.
He's shown he says things which he believes will help him politically and hasn't had a good track record of late rocking a 41% approval rating in Connecticut (48% Rep, 35% dem, 44% Ind.)
Hillary's take on video games stems from a 2005 effort to increase her popularity with voters who believe politicians should have strong family values. I'm not so sure she was speaking out against games as a medium, but rather she was trying to get setup to run for President and specifically was calling for actual enforcement of the ESRB by retailers. She wanted the government to impose a $5,000 penalty on retailers caught providing minors with sexually explicit and violent games. It's similar to selling cigarettes to kids imo.
Personally I don't think that enforcement of ESRB ratings is bad for the industry and a lot has changed since 2005 on the retail front. There is no government regulation of the ESRB and retailers are doing a much better job not selling M rated games to minors.
Already wrote it but it bears repeating: Breyer and Thomas were the dissenters, and Breyer is one of the more liberal justices on the court. Meanwhile, Scalia -- arguably the most conservative justice in recent history -- wrote the majority opinion and strongly criticized the proposed law.
In any event, I don't think you can safely say that anti-gaming legislation is heavily titled toward one end of the political spectrum. Democrats and Republicans alike are hitting this issue with stunning regularity these days.
As an extreme conservative, most likely not, and it was liberals wanting this law passed in CA. Not conservatives, and Schwarzenegger (even though he was a republican) was not a conservative, he was a moderate at best.
Anyways when it comes to censorship and the destruction of the Constitution both Democrats and Republicans are on the same side. They are both for it 100%.
(please note I am talking about politicians and political groups, not average citizens like you and me)
@ Evan Combs - I can't speak for Anthony as I don't know what he meant, but I can tell you that Republican does not equal conservative, just like Democrat does not equal liberal (Blue Dog Democrats are a proof of that). On topic, the issue of videogame regulation goes beyond party affiliations and party ideologies, so we can't let political views blindside us of the real problem at hand, which is that some parents have become guilty of lazy parenting and expect for the videogame industry to succumb to their personal stereotypes/views of what games should be like.
This certainly is wonderful news, maybe now games will be less the subject of hate from the press. The game industry ,like the film and music industry did, is growing up and people seem to begin to recognize that.
YAY! I'm a very happy at this news. I saw the headline on CNN, but I had to read the details here at gamasutra first. 7-2, great victory.
Course this will not stop the accusations, like movies and rock-n-roll it will only stop when the current generation is older and those that accept gaming are the majority. But this gives game developers a lot of power to protect their messages or lack thereof.
"I guess I was mislead by people actually being exicted about this. Absolutely nothing will change, then. Who cares, then?
I mean, from a developer/commerical standpoint, nothing is different."
Merely because nothing has changed doesn’t mean the ruling is any less significant or unworthy of celebration. What this finding by the court means is that another precedent has been set that further protects gaming under the 1st Amendment.
This is a good thing and people are rightly ecstatic about it.
Congrats game industry, YOU ROCK! Perhaps we can stop wasting money on game censorship and start spending it on something worthwhile. I hear the tribble population is getting out of control again.
Scalia, FYI, was actually the author of the majority opinion and probably the biggest critic of the proposed California law.
Click on the .pdf file above and skip to page 38 to see the first dissenting opinion.
Personally I think a 7-2 ruling is great news and hope the aforementioned groups find better ways to spend their time.
Joseph Lieberman and Hillary Clinton both spoke out against games in years past.
As a liberal, I find that highly disappointing.
Joe Lieberman isn't a democrat anymore; one wonders how liberal he is at this point. He switched to independent in 2006 and endorsed McCain for president in 2008. He's back in caucus with the Dem's now but I wouldn't be too disappointed with him speaking out.
He's shown he says things which he believes will help him politically and hasn't had a good track record of late rocking a 41% approval rating in Connecticut (48% Rep, 35% dem, 44% Ind.)
Hillary's take on video games stems from a 2005 effort to increase her popularity with voters who believe politicians should have strong family values. I'm not so sure she was speaking out against games as a medium, but rather she was trying to get setup to run for President and specifically was calling for actual enforcement of the ESRB by retailers. She wanted the government to impose a $5,000 penalty on retailers caught providing minors with sexually explicit and violent games. It's similar to selling cigarettes to kids imo.
Personally I don't think that enforcement of ESRB ratings is bad for the industry and a lot has changed since 2005 on the retail front. There is no government regulation of the ESRB and retailers are doing a much better job not selling M rated games to minors.
In any event, I don't think you can safely say that anti-gaming legislation is heavily titled toward one end of the political spectrum. Democrats and Republicans alike are hitting this issue with stunning regularity these days.
BUt the author of this bill, Leland Yee, is also a Democrat. So I should amend it to Democrats instead of liberals.
Anyways when it comes to censorship and the destruction of the Constitution both Democrats and Republicans are on the same side. They are both for it 100%.
(please note I am talking about politicians and political groups, not average citizens like you and me)
Course this will not stop the accusations, like movies and rock-n-roll it will only stop when the current generation is older and those that accept gaming are the majority. But this gives game developers a lot of power to protect their messages or lack thereof.
I mean, from a developer/commerical standpoint, nothing is different."
Merely because nothing has changed doesn’t mean the ruling is any less significant or unworthy of celebration. What this finding by the court means is that another precedent has been set that further protects gaming under the 1st Amendment.
This is a good thing and people are rightly ecstatic about it.