The Supreme Court on Monday struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors.
In a ruling closely watched by other states and the entertainment industry, the court in what amounts to a 7-2 ruling determined that California's 2005 violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
“Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
<!— story_feature_box.comp —><!— /story_feature_box.comp —>
The much-anticipated ruling in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association is a defeat for current Gov. Jerry Brown. As attorney general, he had defended the statute signed by his gubernatorial predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the one-time star of the ultra-violent Terminator movie series.
The ruling continues a run of cases in which justices have struck down restrictions on electronically conveyed violent or salacious material.
Don't miss a beat – get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up today.
The ruling, moreover, could constrain at least 11 other states, including Florida, Mississippi and Texas, that explicitly sided with California's efforts to restrict the video games minors can buy.
The decision Monday took an unusually long time since the oral arguments were heard in early November.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented separately.
“The interest that California advances in support of the statute is compelling,” Breyer wrote.
Thomas added that at the time the Constitution was drafted, the Founding Fathers believed firmly that “parents have authority over their children.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that California's law, while “well intentioned (was) not framed with the precision the Constitution demands.” The two conservative justices, though, differed in their overall reasoning from other members of the majority.
California's law banned the sale of violent video games to customers under 18. Lawmakers defined, “violent” as activity involving the “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”
The law was modeled after obscenity statutes. It set a familiar-sounding threshold that a “reasonable person” must think the violent game was “patently offensive,” appealed to a minor's “deviant or morbid interest” and lacked serious scientific, literary or artistic merit.
Though passed six years ago, the California law has faced legal challenge the entire time and it has never been put into practice.
California lawmakers justified the restriction as a way to protect minors “physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development.” They cited games such as Postal 2, in which one illustrative scene includes the player hitting a woman in the face with a shovel.
“As she cries out and kneels down, the player hits her twice more with the shovel, this time decapitating her,” California's legal brief recounted. “The player then proceeds to hit the headless corpse several more times, each time propelling the headless corpse through the air while it continues to bleed.”
Entertainment industry advocates countered with their own game examples, such as Full Spectrum Warrior and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.
Without venturing too far into a game-by-game review, the court in concluded California's law and its accompanying penalty of $1,000 per violation suppressed too much protected speech.
© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.