Even as the holiday shopping season approaches and video-game makers are poised to pounce with new blockbuster titles, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA. The controversial case revolves around selling violent video games to minors.
If the court decides to uphold the California video-game violence law, anyone under 18 will remain unable to purchase or rent games that portray the “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting of an image of a human being.” As it stands, the court appears split.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia are among the justices who sympathized with the First Amendment rights of game makers, indicating that the state does not regulate violent comic books, rap music, or movies. But others, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor, seem to be leaning toward confirming the law championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“This is not something that will likely have a strong impact on video-game sales,” said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Gartner. “But its interesting that the court is looking at this, and it will be interesting to see what criteria they apply as they make the decision. It’s always a possibility once the supremes get involved that other states will adopt similar laws.”
Court of Public Opinion
What does the court of public opinion say about video-game violence? Parents should be most responsible for determining whether minors can buy or rent violent video games, according to a new nationwide survey conducted for the nonpartisan First Amendment Center.
The survey, conducted Oct. 29-30 by Gallup, asked how much responsibility parents, video-game manufacturers, government or retail or online stores should have for deciding whether children may buy or rent such games.
“The survey results show a clear majority of Americans see parents having the most responsibility for deciding…