The sale of violent video games to minors may soon never again be considered illegal in the U.S. Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear California's appeal of a decision that struck down a state law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, the ruling would declare such a law unconstitutional on a federal level.
According to USA Today, the law in question describes a violent video game as one that depicts "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." This law covers a vast array of games like first person shooters, fighting games, and of course many sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto. One has to wonder if the law would cover something like Gears of War which is an extremely violent game, but you are killing aliens, not human beings. Last year, the federal appeals court of California ruled that the law was too broad and restricting them based on content would be violating the First Amendment rights of freedom of expression. The court stated there was simply not enough evidence to show that violent games had a harmful physical or psychological effect on children to overcome the rights to due process.
In their appeal, California argues that violent material in video games should be an exception to First Amendment protection based on obscenity as was ruled in the 1968 case Ginsberg v. New York which restricted the sale of sexual material to minors. Paul Smith, a lawyer who represents associations of companies that create and sell videos argues that the First Amendment obscenity exception only relates to sexual material, not violence.
This case could prove to be an important milestone for gaming rights if the ruling is upheld. The gaming industry has long been embroiled in a battle with anti-violence advocates trying to make the sale of violent video games to kids illegal such as the well known attorney Jack Thompson. The industry has also had to contend with studies such as one conducted by CNN in 2008 which show that there may be a link between children playing violent video games and their level of aggression. As the researchers of that study point out, they do not know if playing the games made the kids more aggressive or if more aggressive kids want to play violent video games by their nature. Studies like this one have never been able to show compelling evidence to prove violence video games are harmful and have not done much but blemish the reputation of the video game industry.
So what does this mean for ESRB Ratings? Nothing. Since restricting the sale of certain games to kids based on its ESRB Rating isn't a law but only a recommendation, retailers like GameStop could still prohibit a twelve year old from buying GTA IV without a parent present.
The new case, Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, will be heard in the term that begins next Fall.
Click here to read the full opinion of the Ninth Circuit.
Comments
So it wouldn't be prohibited any longer to sell video games to a minor but a parent would have to be present and confirm it to be okay to buy the videogame? Isn't that how it's always been? It seems that the only thing changing is that instead of the clerk selling the game to the parent and the parent giving it to the kid, the clerk could hand it directly to the kid as long as mommy or daddy was standing right there. I personally wish this law was more heavily enforced, at least for online play. I could care less if some 12 year olds are playing Gears of War or COD 6 on Co-op but if theyre online and I have a squeaky voice crying and swearing at me or my team like they think their in the same caliber of adults, that just annoys the hell out of me and I really don't think they should be able to play. In a mature setting there should be mature people, not 12 year olds that rage and cry and throw their PCs or xbox's at the wall and tell mommy the guys on the game were mean to them.
Your articles are normally so full of bias and fanboy garbage that I was pleasantly surprised to see this one was actually fairly well written. Good job, sir.
Nice article.
Gears would fall under that catagory b/c when you die, it shows a human being killed. The player doesn't have to be the one doing the killing.
I think children should not be able to play M rated games without parents permission.
i think if a kid wants to play a game than he should be allowed to hes the one making his own choices
if this law is passed it would just be stupid, no, stupid is not strong enough, it would be moronic, people should be able to decide what they play, like in portal, you never see the body of the person that dies when you jump in the water, but if you arrange your portals just right, you can see that you are a human being
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!