+- PlayByMail Forums (https://forums.playbymail.dev)
+-- Forum: PlayByMail.Net (https://forums.playbymail.dev/forumdisplay.php?fid=36)
+--- Forum: News & Announcements (https://forums.playbymail.dev/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: United States Supreme Court strikes down California video game law (/showthread.php?tid=223)
United States Supreme Court strikes down California video game law - GrimFinger - 06-29-2011
A couple of days ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down a California law that restricted the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Here is a link to that ruling in PDF format, for any who might be interested in reading it for themselves.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
The lead opinion is only 18 pages long, which is not a lot, actually, as far as judicial opinions are concerned.
It's a good opinion, I think, although it isn't one of the more colorful ones. Fortunately, it is not completely colorless.
On page # 8, the opinion states:
California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim in-deed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id., at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id., at 54.
The opinion touches on previous forms of entertainment that were feared to have a corrupting influence on children, ranging from dime novels to moving pictures to comic books to television to music lyrics.
On the specific point of the interactive aspect of violent video games, the Court said:
California claims that video games present special problems because they are “interactive,” in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Since at least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugar-cane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to. Cf. Interactive Digital Software Assn. v. St. Louis County, 329 F. 3d 954, 957–958 (CA8 2003). As for the argument that video games enable participation in the violent action, that seems to us more a matter of degree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. “[T]he better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.” American Amusement Machine Assn. v. Kendrick, 244 F. 3d 572, 577 (CA7 2001) (striking down a similar restriction on violent video games).
As far as the California law's assisting of parental authority is concerned, the Court elaborated:
And finally, the Act’s purported aid to parental authority is vastly over inclusive. Not all of the children who are forbidden to purchase violent video games on their own have parents who care whether they purchase violent video games. While some of the legislation’s effect may indeed be in support of what some parents of the restricted children actually want, its entire effect is only in support of what the State thinks parents ought to want. This is not the narrow tailoring to “assisting parents” that restriction of First Amendment rights requires.
Justice Scalia's best instance of colorful phraseology rears its head at the very end of the opinion, wherein he writes for the Court:
And as a means of assisting concerned parents it is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harm-less pastime. And the overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other. Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny.