Supreme Court Overturns Video Game Law

By a vote of 7-2, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a California law that bans the sale of certain violent video games to children. The justices ruled the states have no right to restrict ideas to which children are exposed.

The California legislature passed the law in 2005, requiring violent video games to be labeled with an "18." It prohibits the sale or rental of these games to minors and authorizes fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The Video Software Dealers Association, now part of the Entertainment Merchants Association, however, filed suit in federal court to block the law before it could go into effect.

Court challenges

On August 6, 2007, the U.S. District Court for Northern California invalidated the California's law. California immediately appealed the ruling, but on February 20, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling.

California Attorney General – now California Governor – Jerry Brown was a strong advocate for the law, saying it is reasonable for the state to shield children from games featuring graphic violence.

"California's children are exposed every day to video games that glamorize killing sprees, torture and sexual assault," Brown said in the state's petition to the Supreme Court. "In the face of this brutal and extreme violence, I am petitioning the Supreme Court to allow the state to enforce its reasonable ban on the sale or rental of violent video game sales to children."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law violates minors' First Amendment rights. In writing the majority opinion for the high court, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed.

No 'free-floating' power

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," Scalia wrote.

Backers of the law argued that few take issue with the state's right to restrict children's access to pornography. Isn't there an inconsistency in not granting the same right to control access to violence?

The court met the argument head-on, saying there is a long tradition of shielding children from sexual-oriented content. There is not such a tradition, the court found, when it comes to violence.

Gory fairy tales

Scalia pointed to a number of children's fairy tales, such as Hansel and Gretel, as evidence that children have long been exposed to a certain amount of violence.

The court's two dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. In his dissent, Thomas said the founders' concept of freedom of speech does not include a write to speak to minors without first going through their parents or guardians.

Though passed and signed six years ago, the California law never went into effect.