The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, ruled in favor of the videogame industry in a case that called for the ban of violent video games for children in the state of California. A 7 to 2 decision over the State of California solidified opposition against the law, reiterating that video games fall under the First Amendment.
The majority opinion, in clear terms, states: “Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas-and even social messages-through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, ‘esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.”
Justice Scalia wrote this decision alongside Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Alito felt very strongly that the issue must stand, as he disagreed with the court and wrote his own opinion with Chief Justice Roberts agreeing with him. "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones," wrote Justice Alito in a footnote to Scalia's opinion. "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."
This announcement is a major victory for the videogame industry. A case like this has scorned the faces of many in the industry for years, and in turn, has branded the gaming world as a scapegoat for all the ills of our society and our nation’s youth. The law proposed by California representative Leland Yee holds part of the blame, as he claimed violent games were more harmful to children than movies or magazines alike and did not deserve protection under the First Amendment.
This decision also falls in line with other decisions of the lower courts regarding video game banning in such districts as the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. “The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that ‘the freedom of speech,’ as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.”