Well score one for video games. Turns out the Supreme court ruled in favor of Video games.
The article is on the main page of G4's website. Would post itbut my post count is not high enough to post a straight link. sorry.
and here's the article.
In a major win for the video game industry and Free Speech, the United States Supreme Court has struck down California's game law. It was a 7-2 decision, ruling that state laws forbidding the sale or rental of violent games to minors do not comport with the First Amendment. In short: The Game industry won.
The 92-page decision boils down to the following passage:
"This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that 'interactive' video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its out-come, is unpersuasive."
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 "harm" 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 The Odyssey, The Inferno, and even Grimm's Fairy Tales, as well categorizing California's attempt to regulate video games as "the latest episode in a long history of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors."
Also discussed: The history of attempts to classify "new" forms of speech as special classes of protection. The Court has ruled that games are not "qualitatively different from other portrayals of violence" even though they are interactive.
A dissenting opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas 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:
"I am sure that the founding generation would not have understood 'the freedom of speech' 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—for example, by requiring parental consent to speak to aminor—abridg[e] the freedom of speech.”