Say, 'GTFO' to game censorship
While millions of people across the country voted on many different types of legislation, the video game industry had its day in court Tuesday in the Supreme Court. The case, officially known as Schwarzenegger v. EMA, is about a law in California banning the sale or rental of certain violent games to minors. Today, oral arguments began in the Supreme Court, and it seems like the justices are on the side of the Electronic Merchants Association.
It’s great the justices seem to be in favor of the industry, but is this really happening? The subject of violent video games has been around for a long time, but this case is a little extreme.
Let’s think about it. If the Supreme Court sides with California, it could mean the end of a lot of titles. Developers would be limited in their creativity due to the law, and a lot of games would be taken away from store shelves because they are deemed too violent. One must ask the question: what defines a violent game? A game such as “Little Big Planet” has violence because it involves the player breaking things and destroying other characters, so should it be deemed violent? The characteristics of a violent game are so vague that the subject is more grey than black and white.
Despite the arguments that the law is constitutional, the biggest argument against the law would be the Constitution itself. The EMA has argued that video games are under the protection of the First Amendment, as they very well should be. Think about it, if the government had a say in what games should or should not be sold, then it would be censorship. Everyone knows the Constitution gives everyone, including the video game industry, freedom of speech. Or, in this case, the opportunity to publish any game they want. That alone should put a damper on, if not completely break down, the state’s case.
Nevertheless, it’s still a shock to me this is being debated in the highest court in the land. The fact that California even has a law regarding violent games is like spitting in the face of the gaming community. Sure, not all video games are violent, but a majority of them are. If there are people that should be protecting minors from purchasing violent games, it would be parents. They are responsible for their kids, and if they don’t want their children to be playing violent games, they should go with them to Gamestop and decide. There is no need for a law to determine what games are violent and restricting minors to buying certain games. The First Amendment and parents are already good enough methods.
