Schwarzenegger: “Violence is Bad.”

The Supreme Court decided to take on a case involving the reinstation of a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors.  As read in the New York Times, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, signed the law banning the sale of violent video games to minors in 2005.  However, it was never put into law and was overturned by a judge because at the time there was no research showing the connection between violent video games and psychological harm to minors.  The video games in question are those that depict, “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”  The Supreme Court will be deciding whether this law is constitutional and should be reinstated.

This will be a good case for the Supreme Court to set some standards, because according to Lawyer Stephen S. Smith, “There is a fair amount of First Amendment law in the area of sexual explicitness and obscenity, but there is not nearly as much law on the issue of violence and what may be restricted or not under the First Amendment in that arena.”  Opponents of this law argue that there is a rating system for video games that allows parents to decide on what their child can play.  They also believe that these video games are protected forms under the First Amendment.  Supporters of the law believe, “The Supreme Court has upheld laws keeping minors from buying or having access to pornography, alcohol and tobacco. And the California law does not ban parents from purchasing or buying the video games for their children.”  I know this statement is not a bank, but it makes no cents to me.  This case seems closely tied with the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, in which depictions of animal cruelty were kept legal until the law banning them becomes more descriptive.  Supporters are hoping that because the court also chose to hear this one, that they are wanting to focus on this more narrow topic of video games.

My first comment, “Why would the Terminator sign a bill banning violent video games?” This just seems ironic to me.  I personally think that the Supreme Court should vote the law as unconstitutional and let the U.S. sell violent video games to minors.  It’s not that they are selling Grand Theft Auto IV to a five year old.  At least in Iowa, you have to be at least 17 to buy/rent a video game rated “M.”  The Miller test could be applied to see if these games could be classified as obscene, but if they ban the selling of these games to minors, then what would be the difference between that and allowing a minor to go to a rated “R” movie.  They would have to ban both, and this would create too much controversy.  I also believe this law should be banned, because they don’t have hard evidence.  The law was shut down in the first place, because they didn’t have the evidence that these games were actually harmful to minors.  I myself played Grand Theft Auto: III, Vice City, and San Andreas for the PS2 when I was in middle school.  All of these games were rated “M” and were very violent.  I have only received one detention between middle school and high school and I have never been arrested.  I’ve never even been pulled over, and I have been driving since I was 12.

Advertisement