|
The issue: What's more important? An industry's free speech rights? Or a parent's effort to keep violence at bay?
The high court's agreement to hear the case could mean that it's willing to reinstate California's ban. After all, it could have let the lower court's decision to kill the law stand without any further review.
Or, it could mean that the high court wants to make an example of this law to strike down similar attempts elsewhere. After all, the high court struck down a a federal law that would ban videos showing animal cruelty last week, which some hailed as a victory for free speech.
The court will consider California's law in its next term, which begins on Oct. 4.
California's law would have banned the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under age 18; fined retailers up to $1,000 for each violation; and required violent video games to be clearly labeled.
The law was written by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.
“I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has accepted our case to help protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games,” said Yee in a prepared statement. “The Supreme Court has never heard a case dealing with violent video games. I am hopeful that the high court will determine our law to be constitutional, but regardless, states are now certain to receive direction on how to proceed with this important issue.”
The Supreme Court has ruled in various instances that laws can limit minors' access to material, including pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and various licenses and permits, Yee said. He's not disheartened by its animal cruelty video decision; the Court said such a law may be constitutional if it were more narrowly tailored. Yee believes California's violent video game law is narrowly tailored.
In making their case to the Supreme Court, mental health organizations and Yee (a child psychologist by training) argued: “Common sense tells us what a mountain of research reveals. Society has a direct, rational and compelling reason in restricting a minor's access to violent video games. This Court has never directly dealt with this precise issue, but its precedent in protecting children clearly leads one to believe that the Court will agree and reverse the lower court thereby upholding California's statute.”
Attorney General (and candidate for governor) Jerry Brown released a statement saying “It is time to allow California's common-sense law to go into effect and help parents protect their children from violent video games.”
The industry, of course, sees it differently. Michael D. Gallagher , president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association , which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers, said this in a statement on the group's website:
“Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional. Research shows that the public agrees, video games should be provided the same protections as books, movies and music.
“As the Court recognized last week in the U.S. vs. Stevens case, the First Amendment protects all speech other than just a few ‘historic and traditional categories' that are ‘well-defined and narrowly limited.' We are hopeful that the Court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment.
“A poll recently conducted by KRC Research found that 78 percent believe video games should be afforded First Amendment protection. We look forward to presenting our arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States and vigorously defending the works of our industry's creators, storytellers and innovators.” |
Parents, stay tuned! |
