Yesterday, in a 7-2 decision, the nation’s highest court overruled a California law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. Some conservatives, including a dissenting Justice Thomas, argue that this puts more pressure on parents to limit the games their kids play. However, proponents of the Supreme Court’s decision assert that the First Amendment should remain solid and protect the speech of video game producers and the ability of kids to buy and play mature-rated games. It seems that the First Amendment will garner renewed strength through this decision.
A recent Wall Street Journal column expounds on the issue at hand:
Like the Court’s recent decision finding that videos showing awful violence against animals were protected speech, this decision is sure to raise an outcry. Many will say that the High Court’s absolutist views of the First Amendment are leaving American society vulnerable to cultural rot from within.
Permit us to summarize our view of this case’s dilemma in nonlegal language: What came first—the chicken or the egg? That is, what came first—the First Amendment or the descent of America’s culture?
Is it the First Amendment’s fault that this stuff exists? Is it the First Amendment’s fault that someone sells and many millions buy videogames in which, as Justice Alito noted, players spend “hour upon hour controlling the actions of a character who guns down scores of innocent victims”? Or that allows players to re-enact the murders at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech or firing a bullet into President John F. Kennedy?
This would be our short version of the opinion of Justice Scalia and the majority: Yes, U.S. culture today undeniably produces all manner of offensive filth. But that does not mean that the solution to rampant video violence lies with weakening the First Amendment and its broad protections.
A description of the ruling can be found here and a commentary of the decision is also located on the Wall Street Journal website.
