{"id":4093,"date":"2011-06-27T15:10:09","date_gmt":"2011-06-27T19:10:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/?p=4093"},"modified":"2011-06-27T15:10:09","modified_gmt":"2011-06-27T19:10:09","slug":"supreme-court-video-game-ruling-court-rules-games-are-protected-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/2011\/06\/supreme-court-video-game-ruling-court-rules-games-are-protected-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Video Game Ruling: Court Rules Games Are Protected Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter\" src=\"http:\/\/files.g4tv.com\/ImageDb3\/253850_S\/supreme-court-gaming-arguments-the-emaesa-presents-their-case.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court Gaming Arguments -- The EMA\/ESA Presents Their Case\" \/><\/p>\n<p>In a major win for the video game industry and Free Speech, the  United States Supreme Court has struck down California&#8217;s game law. It  was a 7-2 decision, ruling that California&#8217;s law forbidding the sale or rental of violent  games to minors do not comport with the First Amendment.\u00a0In short: The Game industry won.<\/p>\n<p>The 92-page decision boils down to the following passage:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This country has no tradition of  specially restricting children\u2019s access to depictions of violence. And  California\u2019s claim that &#8216;interactive&#8217; video games present special  problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on  screen and determines its out-come, is unpersuasive.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"readmore\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We are thrilled by today&#8217;s news,&#8221; said Jennifer Mercurio, VP &amp;   General Counsel of the Entertainment Consumers Association in a a  statement. &#8220;We had  hoped that we would see this decision, and it&#8217;s been  a long time coming.  That being said, there will probably be one or two  legislators who  attempt to test these new parameters, and the ECA will  continue to fight  for the rights of entertainment consumers.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The decision, written by  Justice Antonin Scalia,  regarded by many as the most conservative member of The Court, lays out  an argument that acknowledges that research into the &#8220;harm&#8221; done by  video games to minors shows only correlation, not causation, and so is  not convincing. It also points out the level of violence contained in  classic works of literature like <em>The<\/em> <em>Odyssey<\/em>, <em>The Inferno<\/em>, and even <em>Grimm&#8217;s Fairy Tales<\/em>,  as well categorizing California&#8217;s attempt to regulate video games as  &#8220;the latest episode in a long history of failed attempts to censor  violent entertainment for minors.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Also discussed: The history of attempts to classify &#8220;new&#8221; forms of  speech as special classes of protection. The Court has ruled that games  are not &#8220;qualitatively different from other portrayals of violence&#8221; even  though they are interactive.<\/p>\n<p>Dissenting opinions were offered by Justices Clarence Thomas and  Stephen Breyer, generally regarded as members of  the court&#8217;s right and  left wings, respectively.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Clarence Thomas&#8217; dissent lays out an argument that U.S.  history clearly shows that the founders of our nation believed in the  absolute authority of parents over their minor children. Summed up by:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I am sure that the founding generation  would not have understood &#8216;the freedom of speech&#8217; to include a right to  speak to children without going through their parents. As a consequence,  I do not believe that laws limiting such speech\u2014for example, by  requiring parental consent to speak to a minor\u2014abridg[e] the freedom of  speech.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justice Breyer&#8217;s dissent points out his belief that the California  law at issue would not have created a new category of speech, and that  it is already illegal to sell material depicting nudity to children.  Further, according to Breyer, the law &#8220;prevents no one from buying a  video game&#8230; all it does is prevent a child or adolescent from buying,  without parental assistance, a gruesomely violent video game of a kind  that the industry <em>itself <\/em>tells us it wants to keep out of the hands of those under the age of 17.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a major win for the video game industry and Free Speech, the United States Supreme Court has<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geeky-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4093"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4094,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4093\/revisions\/4094"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.geekworldordersite.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}