SACRAMENTO, CA — The Governator has lost another moral battle, this time featuring the video gaming industry, minors, the First Amendment and games featuring violent action sequences.Attempting to keep young gamers away from shoot-em-up entertainment has become a popular pastime for politicians on both sides of the aisle, eager to prove their deep concern for America’s children. Fortunately for teens and adolescents who like to kill zombies, vampires and nearly anyone who will step in front of a moving vehicle, courts keep ruling in their favor.
This past February, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2005 California law that would have levied a fine of up to $1,000 on anyone who sold or rented a video game with an “18” label to a minor.
According to the three-judge panel, which heard the Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger case and upheld a 2007 lower court ruling, video games qualify as “a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.”
The decision echoes those of state and federal courts in 13 cases reviewed in Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma.
Like an increasing number of people, the judges were unconvinced by government claims that viewing or playing violent games results in aggressive behavior in minors.
“The State has not produced substantial evidence that supports the Legislature’s conclusion that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors,” Judge Consuelo M. Callahan explained in the court’s 30-page ruling.
The ruling was hailed by game industry officials, who called it “a vindication” of voluntary rating systems, parental involvement and the efforts of retailers to educate consumers about their products.
Naturally, those offended by the proximity of a minor to a virtual rail gun are urging state Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal. Sen. Leland Yee [D-San Francisco] insisted in a press release that “We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder,” – a statement which would appear to contradict itself given that it would place the government in a nanny position.
The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, indicated a preference for facts over emotion, stating that a label mandate “compels the carrying of the State’s controversial opinions” instead of “purely factual information” about the content of the game play in question.
Arguments comparing the restriction of violent content to the restriction of erotic content were equally unimpressive to the court, which cited the 1968 Ginsberg v. New York Supreme Court decision concluding that obscenity refers specifically to sex and not violence.
First Amendment attorney Lawrence Walters is hoping that a baker’s dozen of court losses will encourage legislators to find something else to focus their attention and tax payer dollars on.
“Everyone was waiting on the Ninth Circuit,” Walters explained to the press. “All of the major cases have been resolved at this point. Legislators are backing away from this issue because they know they’ll lose.”
