The Supreme Court rejected a proposed California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. According to the Supreme Court, video games fall under First Amendment Protection.
“Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.” –CNN
We’ve already explored the debate of video game art in a past post. It’s been established that there are differing opinions on this topic…
and I don’t think a Supreme Court ruling will change that.
California state senator Leland Yee, who proposed the original law, has extended the debate by offering an interesting response. “Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” said Yee.
Is he right? This ruling definitely has implications that extend far beyond the art world. The marketing, advertising, and general promotion of these violent video games will change to cater to a younger demographic.
However, the effect of this ruling will also extend to galleries and exhibitions, research and academia, pop culture, and future legislation.
What do you think?