The Supreme Court announced today that they will review the constitutionality of a proposed California law banning the sale of explicitly violent video games to minors. The bill, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, would impose up to a $1,000 fine on retailers in violation of selling mature rated games to kids under the age of 18, and would also set stricter guidelines on the video game ratings system. Shortly following the Governor’s endorsement, a Federal Appellate court in San Francisco struck down the law. Now, the question at hand is basically this: Based on Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which repeatedly sides with free speech rights in viewing and purchasing video content, will the High court side with the video game industry or with the Governor and proponents of the new law?
As recently as last Tuesday’s animal cruelty ruling, the Supreme Court has made the judgment that minors, as well as adults have a certain degree of rights when it comes to what they choose to do, watch, or say, as it relates to content that is offensive to some, but tolerated by others. The movie industry and the producers of TV shows and other forms of entertainment are financially dependent on a certain degree of violation by kids when it comes to adhering to their ratings systems. Therefore, they have often exhausted their coffers legally to make sure minors are protected under the first amendment when it relates to viewing or playing games and movies. But this time there may be a new precedent set, mainly because the new law is so specific to video games, and unlike the animal cruelty video case, it may be difficult for the High court to overrule this law on the basis of it being too broad in nature.
The reasoning for the heightened possibility of an endorsement of California Assembly bill 1179 by the Supreme Court is driven by the fact that there is an apparent tie between the psychological impacts of violent video games and an individual’s likelihood to tolerate this kind of behavior in their daily lives. Though the evidence is largely circumstantial, there is no doubt in my mind that exposure to violence at a young age is inherently unhealthy and can lead to violent action later in life. Though most can tolerate these images, some who are predisposed to mental illness may not be able to distinguish between the reality of video games and the realities of everyday life. These concerns, and the relatively lax enforcement of the video games rating system, are likely reasons to believe that the Supreme Court could make new precedent with their ruling on this law.
Whether First Amendment rights allow minors to play anything they want as long as they don’t buy it is also at issue. The bill states that this will not be the case, but the court could choose to address the matter in order to set the record straight on the rights of minors to play games with explicit content bought by their parents or guardians, specifically within the privacy of their homes. The Supreme Court will likely rule that the California law sufficiently addresses this matter, and that the First Amendment protects a minor’s right to play games purchased by an adult. The enforcement then lies with the parent or guardian, and their own household rules. This is how it has always been, and in a free country it is how it should be in my mind. However, few can disagree that we have a right to protect children from images that may hurt them mentally. The Supreme Court now has to juggle the pros and cons of this law, but based on recent history, we should all rest assured that the First Amendment rights of minors will be protected at all costs.
Despite this fact, opponents from the video game industry will fight the constitutionality of the law at all costs. In a capitalist society, few can blame them for protecting their profits; however, it may be that the industry has gone too far in marketing games intended for adults to minors. They have abused their ability to market to a certain demographic, much like cigarettes, and their time may have come to be put to task. This kind of law, regardless of the reasons for opposition, makes sense when coupled with a conscious effort by parents to manage the content their children play. This combination of forces will make the best of the Supreme Court’s decision and ensure that the government does what is best for the highly impressionable, and technologically savvy next generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment