Not a member? Sign up now
Supreme Court ends ban on violent video games for kids
By Jason GilbertJune 27th, 2011, 12:55 pmComments (3)
Killing spree! The Supreme Court voted 7-2 today that California can no longer ban the selling or rental of violent video games to children under eighteen. California parents won't be able to depend on the government to prevent their kids from getting their little hands on the newest Grand Theft Auto. "Depictions of violence have never been subject to government regulation," according to Justice Antonin Scalia and the court, and that means little Jimmy can now once again shoot the ever-loving Bejeezus out of unarmed men on the streets of San Andreas.
Under the struck-down California law, stores caught selling violent video games to minors could have been hit with hefty fines upwards of $1,000. The CA legislature had defined a violent game as one "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Man, what ever happened to Tetris?
The notably conservative Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, while, according to The New York Times' Adam Liptak, Clarence Thomas strikingly wrote in his dissent that the free speech of minors was not protected by the Constitution. It will be interesting to see how (and if) this opinion, a head-scratcher, evolves in the future.
For now, though, California kids are free to buy and play their violent video games again; because nothing says summer like holing yourself up in your dark bedroom to blast some (virtual) fools with your (virtual) sub-machine gun.
Commentarium (3 Comments)
Finally, an article I can praise! You got it right this time, Nerve, and I thought you should know it. With its correct grammar, relevant information, and witty prose, this article should be posted at the water cooler so that your other writers have an example to follow.
Are you serious? This article reads like it was written by someone who hasn't played a video game in twenty years, and doesn't know anything about them beyond ridiculous scare journalism from the 24-hour news cycle. Sure, you can praise its grammar and the fact that it is fairly thorough, but it's pretty offensively dismissive over the very legitimate importance of this ruling. This was nothing less than the very essence of a censorship-free society being put on trial.
Frkalny I think that's absolutely good stuff.