Video Game Voters Network

With the Supreme Court slated to hear arguments in the fall regarding Schwarzenegger v. EMA/Entertainment Software Association, both sides are busy preparing their respective cases.

California moved first as the party seeking to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the state’s anti-video game law is unconstitutional. On July 12, California Attorney General Jerry Brown submitted written arguments - known as a Petitioners' brief - to the Supreme Court.

Senator Leland Yee, the architect of the California law that would prohibit the sale of certain video games, included a few excerpts from the brief on his website. You can read the excerpts in their entirety below, but essentially California is arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect minors access to “offensively violent material”.

The Entertainment Software Association has until September 10 to file their own written brief, which will demonstrate why the California law is unconstitutional.

In the meantime, Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of ESA, issued a response to California’s brief filing:

Computer and video games are First Amendment protected speech. There is an unbroken chain of more than a dozen previous court rulings agreeing. Courts across the country recognize that computer and video games, like other protected expression such as movies, books, and music, have an artistic viewpoint, and use sounds and images to create an experience and immerse the player in art. That is why other courts have unanimously affirmed that video games are entitled to the same constitutional protection as movies, music, books, and other forms of art.

California’s law is no different than others before it. It is clearly unconstitutional under First Amendment principles. We look forward to presenting our arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States and vigorously defending the works of our industry’s creators, storytellers and innovators.

Here’s an excerpt from California's Petitioners' brief – we want to know what you think about it:

“The First Amendment has never been understood as guaranteeing minors unfettered access to offensively violent material.  Such material shares the same characteristics as other forms of unprotected speech, especially sexually explicit material.  Throughout history, many states have enacted laws that regulate the sale of both sexual and violent material to minors.  Such restrictions reflect society’s understanding that violent material can be just as harmful to the well-being of minors as sexually explicit material. This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material.  Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction.  No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors.”

What do you think? Are video games that contain elements of violence like pornography? Does the depiction of violence automatically remove First Amendment protections? Share your opinion in the comments below. Then be sure to sign up for updates and ways you can protect your rights as a video gamer.