Mortal Kombat may not seem to have a lot in common with beloved fairy tales, but when it comes to the First Amendment, it has the same protections as any other work of art.
That’s what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in a case striking down a California law that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
The colorful ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, cited numerous examples of violence in the works of art often presented to children, arguing there is little precedent for laws preventing young people access to violent ideas.
“Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore,” Scalia wrote. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed ... And Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven.”
The Supreme Court has permitted regulation of art and other speech only under narrow circumstances, mainly concerning obscenity, but this is the first time it’s established that video games merit such considerations.
Free-speech advocates hailed the decision.
“The Supreme Court got it right — video games are protected speech,” said Rebecca Jeschke, a spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief against the California law.
“This is an important ruling protecting free speech rights for ... the 21st century.”
The distinction between obscenity, which can be regulated, and violence, which cannot, has long been enshrined in the Supreme Court.
Last year, the court ruled that a law banning dogfighting videos and depictions of animal cruelty were not permissible under the First Amendment.
“California approaches this as if it’s an obscenity case, but it’s not,” says Christine A. Corcos, a professor of law at LSU who writes on media and free speech. “Violence is not obscene. You cannot redefine it.”
The ruling also brought massive relief for the video-game industry, which was poised to lose millions if the law was upheld.
According to data released in 2010 by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, which regulates video game sales, a quarter of video game players are under the age of 18, and 17 percent of the industry’s $10.5 billion in sales, were for games rated “mature.”
The ratings released by the board, like those for films and music, are not affected by the ruling because they are part of a voluntary system not enforceable by law.
“In striking this law, the court has made clear that the video game industry effectively empowers parents to be the ones to decide which games are right for their children,” said rating board president Patricia Vance.
That’s what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in a case striking down a California law that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
The colorful ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, cited numerous examples of violence in the works of art often presented to children, arguing there is little precedent for laws preventing young people access to violent ideas.
“Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore,” Scalia wrote. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed ... And Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven.”
The Supreme Court has permitted regulation of art and other speech only under narrow circumstances, mainly concerning obscenity, but this is the first time it’s established that video games merit such considerations.
Free-speech advocates hailed the decision.
“The Supreme Court got it right — video games are protected speech,” said Rebecca Jeschke, a spokesman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief against the California law.
“This is an important ruling protecting free speech rights for ... the 21st century.”
The distinction between obscenity, which can be regulated, and violence, which cannot, has long been enshrined in the Supreme Court.
Last year, the court ruled that a law banning dogfighting videos and depictions of animal cruelty were not permissible under the First Amendment.
“California approaches this as if it’s an obscenity case, but it’s not,” says Christine A. Corcos, a professor of law at LSU who writes on media and free speech. “Violence is not obscene. You cannot redefine it.”
The ruling also brought massive relief for the video-game industry, which was poised to lose millions if the law was upheld.
According to data released in 2010 by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, which regulates video game sales, a quarter of video game players are under the age of 18, and 17 percent of the industry’s $10.5 billion in sales, were for games rated “mature.”
The ratings released by the board, like those for films and music, are not affected by the ruling because they are part of a voluntary system not enforceable by law.
“In striking this law, the court has made clear that the video game industry effectively empowers parents to be the ones to decide which games are right for their children,” said rating board president Patricia Vance.
