U.S. Supreme Court gives video games First Amendment rights

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a bill from California criminalizing the sale of "M" rated video games to underage customers was unconstitutional. This ruling gives video games the same First Amendment protection as books, movies, music and television. 

The bill, which would have had the government treating video games like cigarettes or pornography, proposed that selling a game rated "M" to a customer under 18 years old should be a felony punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

According to Huffington Post, Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion said, "No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Originally inspired by Mortal Kombat's excessive blood and gore, the ESRB rating system, which rates games as either "E," "T," or "M," has been the industry standard in the U.S. ever since. The ESRB is a guide for parents, not a morality code. It is against most retailers' store policy to sell "M" rated games to children, but it's not illegal, and it is certainly not a felony. 

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones," wrote Justice Alito in a footnote to Scalia's opinion, according to The Escapist. "Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny."

Despite yesterday's events, Senator Leland Yee (D-CA) has voiced his plan to craft a similar law that does not violate the Supreme Court's decision.

"We're poring through the opinions to see where we can create a pathway for a successful bill that could withstand a challenge," he said. "The evidence is absolutely crystal clear that there are harmful effects on our children."

"Even with the existing court, there may be, if we craft the bill differently, there may be a basis for trying to get another hearing within the Supreme Court on this critical matter," he added.

Did anybody else read the word "loophole" in the last two paragraphs?