U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

Top court to rule on California video game law

Related Topics

Gamers play ''Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,'' at a pre-release event held in New York November 9, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Gamers play ''Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,'' at a pre-release event held in New York November 9, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:00pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors violated constitutional free-speech rights, the first time it will rule on a video game case.

The justices agreed to hear the state's appeal after a U.S. appeals court in California struck down the law, which also imposes strict video-game labeling requirements, as unconstitutional.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in the case and then issue a ruling during its upcoming term, which begins in October. It will be one of the most important cases the court has thus far decided to hear in the upcoming term.

The law has been challenged by video game publishers, distributors and sellers, including the Entertainment Software Association. Its members include Disney Interactive Studios, Electronic Arts, Microsoft Corp and Sony Computer Entertainment America.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the state argued the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment do not bar a state from prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18.

The state also argued that the appeals court was wrong to require it to show a direct link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors.

The law, adopted in 2005, has never taken effect because of the legal challenge.

"It is time to allow California's common-sense law to go into effect and help parents protect their children from violent video games," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said.

SAME STANDARD AS SEX

The appeal argued that violent material in video games should be subject to the same legal standard the courts have used to prohibit the sale of sexually explicit material to minors.

The Supreme Court has never addressed whether violent material sold to children can be treated the same as sexually explicit material.

The law defines a violent video game as one that depicts "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Anyone who sells a violent video game to a minor can be fined as much as $1,000.

Michael Gallagher, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers, said the group looks forward to presenting its arguments and defending the industry's works.

"Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional. Research shows that the public agrees; video games should be provided the same protections as books, movies and music," he said.

The Supreme Court agreed to decide the California case after last week's ruling that struck down a U.S. law that bans videos depicting animal cruelty for violating constitutional free-speech rights.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he looked forward to the Supreme Court upholding the law.

"We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," he said.

(Editing by Eric Walsh and Todd Eastham)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
MagAodh wrote:
Again with the stupid lawsuits and free speech. The California ban did not violate free speech as people are protesting it. If you are going to say selling or renting videogames to minors is protected free speech. Then we need to protect their rights to watch pornography and my right to shout “Fire” at every opportunity I get.

Apr 26, 2010 11:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
By the time my son was 15, he’d killed thousands of virtual soldiers in video games my ex-wife got him. It’s powerful stuff. Let’s protect kids from the most crazy graphic of this powerful force.

Apr 26, 2010 3:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dudemus wrote:
“It is time to allow California’s common-sense law to go into effect and help parents protect their children from violent video games,”

if the kids are under 18 shouldn’t the parents be responsible for protecting them and monitoring their purchases?

Apr 26, 2010 11:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.