While the midterm elections dominated the headlines on Tuesday, the Supreme Court was busy hearing arguments in a case that has the potential to change both the media industry and the reach of the First Amendment.
Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association is the result of a 2005 California law that banned the sale of extremely violent video games to minors under 18. Video game industry trade groups promptly filed a complaint, and District Court Judge Ronald Whyte granted a permanent injunction against the law.
This case is far from the first involving violent video games. Many other states have passed laws prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, but the laws have always been shot down in the courts as violations of the First Amendment.
The crux of states' arguments is that exposure to violent games harms minors and incites violent behavior. This would potentially make their distribution — akin to pornographic material — exempt from full protection under the First Amendment.
If the Supreme Court decides to uphold the law, it would mean that video games would become the only form of violent media not completely protected by the First Amendment. Currently, the video game industry, much like the music and film industries, voluntarily applies ratings to its products and imposes regulations against the sale of objectionable products to minors.
Not only would the law unfairly restrict a medium that has long been the scapegoat of politicians seeking to avoid addressing real issues — exactly as comic books and rap music once were targeted — but it would set an undesirable precedent for other laws restricting violent media across the board.
Further, the evidence surrounding the issue is inconclusive at best. In a two-year study conducted by Harvard Medical School Professors Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, the husband-and-wife pair concluded that although there was some correlation between violent video games and aggressive acts, there was definitely not enough information to suggest causation.
There's no question that spending hours shooting people in violent games like "Grand Theft Auto" and "Gears of War" is not the most enriching educational experience for a child, but there's nowhere near enough evidence to prove that exposure to violent video games leads to violent behavior.
During California Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini's opening statement, Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, asking, "Some of the Grimms' fairy tales are quite grim, are you going to ban them, too?"
If the Supreme Court rules that the video game industry should be subject to regulation, what's to say that this sort of law will not eventually be extended to other forms of media?
The Supreme Court will hand down a verdict by June. For the sake of freedom of expression, let's hope they make the right decision.
