Supreme Court Case: Can the Government Set Age Restrictions on Violent Video Games?
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
This was a case involving the video game industry, where the video game industry fought California legislation that restricted the sales of video games to minors. The California laws set new precedent with a state regulating video games that were deemed "too violent" for minors to purchase. This was a surprising move from the perspective of the video game industry because generally they self-regulate age restrictions - which the supreme court found as sufficient.
California Legislator showing video games with additional restriction
California legislators argued that a child's mental health was harmed if the child played violent video games. The video game industry argued that this restriction violated the first amendment. The Supreme Court rationale concluded that violence in of itself was not considered obscene, thus speech regarding violence was protected by the first amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence of a compelling link between video games and a child's mental health. Overall, the Supreme Court ruled in the video game industries favor that the California law was unconstitutional.
This case paved the way for video games to have similar free speech protections that music and movies have.
Thanks for the quick read, Steemians!
People always like to blame someone or something else rather then taking responsibility for their actions.
Agreed. It is funny that most of the people against those games probably had no idea what it is actually like to play them.