Supreme Court Violent Video Games Ruling: Ban On Sale, Rental To Children Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.

On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.

Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.

"Certainly the books we give children to read - or read to them when they are younger - contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.

Comments

[Erilis000]

08:25 PM on 07/02/2011

I'm really having trouble understanding all this...
If I understand things correctly, it's illegal to sell an R-rated movie to a minor, correct? But an adult can legally purchase the game for his child, correct?

So, now the supreme court has said that it is legal to sell an M-rated game to a minor, correct?

[Kenny Stai]

11:23 PM on 07/02/2011

wrong this stops it from being goverment regulted minors cant buy m rated games without a parent

[Kenny Stai]

03:10 PM on 07/02/2011

people wake up stop letting these people looking to ban video games as out to protect your children. They are feeding you lies and you continue to believe them.All you seem to think kids get the most violent thing in the world just for walking into wal mart. M rated games, yes they have ratings to tell you if they are so called bad or not, are not sold to minors unless a parent goes in there ignore the cashier telling them whats in the games and buying it anyway. The truth is video games are regulted (yes i know spelled that wrong) very well. Unless you 6 year kid for some reason has a 18 years or older id THEY CANT GET M RATED GAMES. WAKE UP PEOPLE

[eli trinity]

06:54 PM on 07/01/2011

Violent Video Games Reduce Brain Response to Violence and Increase Aggressive Behavior,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm

[jerryengelbach]

04:59 PM on 07/01/2011

There's no evidence that video games produce violent children or kids that grow up to be violent adults. Boys have always loved playing "violent" games.

The most violent thing in the United States is the government -- conducting invasions of foreign countries and causing thousands of innocent deaths. That is the worst possible example for the children and is what should be banned.

[David305]

07:27 PM on 06/30/2011

It's called PARENTING. If it really does take a village to raise your children, tie the tubes.

[pgobrien]

04:50 PM on 06/30/2011

I don't know what's wrong with these guys on this court. Not to argue the final merits of the decision -- though I'm viscerally opposed to it, I wonder if anyone could present me with a rationale for it that would make it seem less obscene on its face -- I cannot believe that Scalia had the nerve to equate the experience of playing visually stimulating and disturbing violent video games for hour after hour with a person reading some gory sentences in an old fairy tale. That is so disingenuous as to be outright bratty. There's no equivalence, and Justice Scalia is (I think) smart enough to know that. I just don't believe any more that he cares.

[ruleoflaw66]

10:08 AM on 06/30/2011

Whose 'freedom of speech' exactly is being protected here?

Many posters are apparently confused.

It is the companies that make these violent games who are having that 'right' protected, not the children. The companies are the ones doing all the talking.

There is still a difference between 'speech' and listening, or being an audience or a consumer. If these same kids went down the street saying the things that they hear in those games, they'd be arrested.

[Barrelz]

01:52 PM on 06/30/2011

It's the developers' right of expression and the childrens' right to enjoy it. California's law would have been "protecting" the children from the harmful effects of violent videogames, even though no study has proven that there is such a thing. If you read the courtroom transcript you'll notice that, I think it was justice Scalia, he walked all over the studies that had been denouncing them as unscientific and the like. At any rate there was nothing to protect the children from and even if there was it would be the parents' role to do so. Nothing bad will come out of this ruling as it was a victory over ignorance for the first amendment.

[Yardlad]

11:43 AM on 07/01/2011

By your own logic we should dispense with the laws preventing the sale of cigarettes, porn, booze, guns, ammunition, etc., to children. Since there is no study has proven that these items cause harm. After all, it is the children's right to enjoy the product.
You claim there is no conclusive research demonstrating the harmful effects of violence in entertainment. I submit this is a case of selective acknowledgement, no different than the tactics the tobacco industry employed decades ago.

How much research is needed to verify the point?

From this position I would deduce you have no children, therefore no skin in this game.
You should leave the discussion to those who do, who have to work and aren't around to monitor every single purchase a child might make.

As an aside, the violence of media leads to desensitized audiences, leads to normalized ideas of violence. How ridiculous is it that a nipple slip causes more uproar than a body severed in twain? Which is natural and normal here?

[dscarrollinlv]

03:26 PM on 06/30/2011

It is still the parents right to parent, not the courts right to say what I can and can not parent. Next the you know the Government will try to tell me what fast food I can and cant feed my kids.......Parents need to step up and be a parent. Whether or not the games are sold to minors or not , if they want them bad enough they will get them either way. To much Government is a bad thing period. The Government is in our lives enough.

[pgobrien]

04:56 PM on 06/30/2011

If parents want their kids to have violent video games they can buy them and give them to the kids. The law was to prevent stores from selling the games to kids.

Parents' rights were not in jeopardy. (But apparently, critical thinking skills in this country are, for all the argument that's been going on in this forum.)

And all this talk about no proof that there's harm -- puhleeze. Do you even KNOW that there's a therapy for people who have phobias that prescribes exposing them to the thing they fear (or dislike) in greater and greater amounts until they've been "desensitized."

It's like saying movies and TV shows have no effect on people, but then we KNOW we depend on commercials and marketing to influence people to think AND ACT the way we want them to -- to buy things or visit places or take part in activities that make us money. But when it's a matter of our freedom to expose kids to negative influences for money, all of a sudden, there's no proof that it has any affect. Give me a break.

[FormerReaganite]

09:44 PM on 06/29/2011

This all comes out of Japan. They could not conquer the U.S. in 1941, so they have figured out a way to conquer us in a more subtle way: POPULAR MEDIA

[i hate politics]

11:15 AM on 06/30/2011

Wow, I suppose conservatives also have not cornered the market on big ot ry either. (See his other comments below for this reference).

[Skyler McLane]

12:40 PM on 06/30/2011

I guess he missed the post someone else made about Japan's crime rates vs video game sales rates per capita. Because looking at the numbers, logically, one can only see that video games are not bad. What is bad is bad parenting.

[FormerReaganite]

09:29 PM on 06/29/2011

I AM personally on the "far left" (as Bill O'Really likes to suggest)

And yet, I am in favor of protecting our vulnerable children from CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION in all forms (violent MEDIA, in ALL FORMS, included, for those that have accused me of being 'one-sided' and such)

SURPRISE !!!

Conservatives are not the only ones concerned about family values !!!

[i hate politics]

11:13 AM on 06/30/2011

Yes apparently conservatives are also not the only ones ig norant of that which they speak. Sanctimonious as you may be on this subject, you have run out of options (except to be a parent and keep your own kids away from material you find objectionable.) The SC has ruled, and for better or for worse, you lost this one.

[seafarer00]

05:05 PM on 06/30/2011

CAPITALIST EXPLOITATI­ON in all forms (violent MEDIA, in ALL FORMS, so who dictates what is violent and what isn't? What kind of witch hunt is this? Nice way to surpress ideas. Are books violent? Chapman had the book "Catcher in the Rye" and said it motivated him to shoot Lennon, should that be banned for children. Homer's Illiad has graphic violence in it that all school children read, as well as does Shakespeare's works. The nightly news shows more violence than most video games. Who decides what children read or watch. Who in the government gets to do this?
Your America sounds a lot like 1936 Germany.

[FormerReaganite]

09:24 PM on 06/29/2011

The First Amendment is all about POLITICAL SPEECH: Political dissent and disagreement on government policy (read it!)

The First Amendment is NOT about CORRUPTING CHILDRENS' MORALS

[i hate politics]

11:21 AM on 06/30/2011

And if the government decided you could not say anything (and I mean anything) unless it was political in nature, you’d be fine with that? So you'd be happy if you could not give your opinion on the quality of service from your plumber unless the government allows it? Thankfully, sir, the Court and the history of this country does not agree you.

[seafarer00]

05:00 PM on 06/30/2011

The First Amendment is all about POLITICAL SPEECH

WRONG, it's about free speech all types. Not just political.

Read it,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Since you are not a constitutional lawyer I recommend you read up on it.
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words, as well as harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, commercial speech such as advertising, and time, place and manner restrictions.
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns .

[Yardlad]

11:50 AM on 07/01/2011

The problem is extending free speech protection to COMPANIES!
The fact that they are trying to sell me a product - harmful or not - is giving protection to an entity with (conceivably) limitless breath, unequaled reach, unending resources, and unclear agendas. This is NOT what the first amendment intended.
Members working for a company have freedom of speech, but the company (made up of individuals) does not, and should not. ..

[FormerReaganite]

09:16 PM on 06/29/2011

I am REALLY getting tired of these "it's the first amendment" arguments...
Using your logic, kids should be able to view porn

(heck why not just repeal all child porn laws too?

That's YOUR LOGIC and don't try to deny it !

[Barrelz]

03:45 AM on 06/30/2011

Ah you caught us, we all advocate child pornography, and I thought we were being sneaky.

Anyway, if that's our logic than by your logic the government should ban all free thought or expression. "That's YOUR LOGIC and don't try to deny it!"

[jerryengelbach]

05:09 PM on 07/01/2011

Depends on your definition of porn.

There are societies in which children are aware of adults having sex.

Sex is something children are curious about in one way when they're young and in another way when they get older.

Constitutionally, there should be no ban on its depiction. America is hypocritical about sex.

[duckzilla]

08:43 PM on 06/29/2011

good to see the government not getting carried away with censorship. who do they think they are with all this censorship?-huffpost moderators?

[David Michael Wise]

04:54 PM on 06/29/2011

There is no evidence that video games cause violent behavior in children. The same amount of agitation is found when people watch a heated debate, or even play competitive sports. Violent crime in the United States is at its lowest rate in TWENTY years and it is continuing to drop. The California law was nothing more than an attempt to curb First Amendment rights by allowing the government to create a blacklist of media unfit for minors, which would have inevitable lead to the print and film mediums. The California law would have endangered future generations by allowing the government to determine the morals for minors, and taking away that right from parents. Video games have a ratings system similar to the MPAA, but much more reliable and accurate. Also, most retailers as store policy do not sell M-Rated (equivalent to an R-rating) games to minors. The Supreme Court was right about this, even if a many didn't even bother to consider the implications of the California law.

[grapost]

10:11 AM on 06/29/2011

FOR THOSE OF YOU CLAIMING THERE ARE NO LAWS AGAINST SELLING R-RATED MOVIE TICKETS TO MINORS, well think again. SOME STATES do have laws against this. Here's one from the State Of Tennessee!

Tennessee Code 39-17-907, enacted in 1989, states, "...viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian..."

Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.

[jccalhoun]

02:20 PM on 06/29/2011

Read that law again. It does NOT make it illegal for minors to watch R-rated films. http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/39-17-907/
It makes it illegal to show a sexual film outside and it requires "Each theater at which two (2) or more motion pictures are shown in the same building shall maintain adequate supervision of the customers to prevent minors from purchasing a ticket or admission pass to a motion picture designated by the rating board of the Motion Picture Association of America by the letter G for general audiences or PG for all ages, parental guidance advised, and then viewing a motion picture designated R for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian, or X, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted. "
So all it requires is that theaters with two or more screens have people making sure that kids don't buy G or PG tickets and then go to an R movie. It does NOT make it illegal to sell to minors

[grapost]

04:23 PM on 06/29/2011

Oh stop trying twist what the law says to suit your argument The law was put in place to prevent movie theaters from selling tickets to minors for R-Rated movies who are NOT with an adult! It is just like the laws that prevent the sale of cirgarettes to minors. Get over it it will you.

[grapost]

04:27 PM on 06/29/2011

In Tennessee, the legal age to buy a R-rated movie ticket -- IS 18!

It's not a new law, either.

Tennessee Code 39-17-907, enacted in 1989, states, "...viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian..."

Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a $2,500 fine and/or 11 months and 29 days in jail.

Malco Senior Vice President Jimmy Tashie says Malco's theaters are enforcing the law because, well, it IS the law. Apparently, some parents who know the law have made their voices heard.

"We tell (our employees) to respect the law," Tashie says. "It's a real problem when an 18-year-old comes up with a 17-year-old date. We have to say, 'We're sorry.' We don't want to get called on it (by a parent or by the state)."

Tashie says if a parent or adult guardian accompanies a 17-year-old to the box office and purchases the minor's ticket, Malco will allow the adult to leave the teenager at the theater to watch the R-rated movie. The adult must show consent, he says.

The law's the law. That means you 17-year-old's out there in Tennessee may have to suck up your pride and let Mom and Pop buy your R-rated movie tickets!

[jdbond]

08:22 AM on 06/29/2011

I concur. Just make sure they are not watching any movies with n_u_dity...you don't wanna traumatize them, do you?