How the First Amendment protects violent video games

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot stop the sale or rental of video games to minors, This decision reinforces both the First Amendment protection for interactive video games and the free expression rights of children.

The California law in question prevented sales to minors games involving "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

Protecting children "does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Reason for the Supreme Courts decision are as follows:

- Entertainment is protected by the First Amendment: The Court notes that although video games are primarily intended for entertainment, "we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try."

- Sexual and violent content are viewed differently: America has a long tradition of limiting depictions of sexual acts, the Court notes, but has never been as restrictive about violence. "Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia wrote. "Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed."

- States can't target emerging media: As new technologies are invented, states cannot target them for restriction because of concern about the potential influence on children. In this case, for example, the Court concluded that the interactive nature of video games did not warrant government action any more than a compelling book would.

- The science doesn't support censorship: The Supreme Court dismisses research that violence poses a threat to children, saying that it doesn't prove that violent video games cause children to act aggressively.

- Disgust alone can't justify limits: Justice Samuel Alito did some of his own research into video games and shared his findings with his colleagues. "Justice Alito recounts all of these disgusting video games in order to disgust us — but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression," Scalia wrote.

This ruling explains that any new form of communication or media to come with be protected by the First Amendment to the same extent as films, newspapers and other traditional media.

What is funny here is how big of a deal this was made out to be. But I can pretty much guarantee that if a minor wanted a video game they would find a way to get it even if it was restricted.