Violent video games: Court is right on the law, wrong on the issue

The Supreme Court was right in ruling this week that video games, even ones that depict realistic scenes of violence, are protected speech under the First Amendment and that states can't pass laws restricting their sale to minors. The voluntary ratings system video game manufacturers and sellers have adopted, akin to the Motion Picture Association's ratings for movies, is the right approach, and stores should consider the labels not mere advisories to parents but should enforce policies against the sale of violent video games to minors. Fortunately, it appears that the industry, which has a major presence in Maryland, has become more effective in policing itself since the California law at issue in the recent court case was enacted. There is reason to hope that as this technology becomes a more common part of our lives, stores will be just as strict about selling violent games to minors as movie theaters are about not allowing underage patrons into R-rated movies.

However, Justice Antonin Scalia did the issue a disservice in his opinion striking down the law by comparing violent video games to the scenes of violence that have been prevalent in children's literature and entertainment for generations. Fairy tales may contain descriptions of graphic violence, and cartoons may depict it on the screen, but they are a far cry from the level of realism and immersion provided by contemporary video games. There is a real difference between reading a description of a witch being burned in an oven (as in Hansel and Gretel) and actively controlling a character on screen who runs around and kills imaginary enemies by the score. It is difficult to separate the issues of cause and correlation in cases where those who played violent video games committed violent acts – did they play the games because they were drawn to violence, or were they drawn to violence because they played the games? But there can be no doubt that the exponentially increasing levels of realism in violent games should be of more concern to parents than they evidently are to Justice Scalia. Our Constitution from the 18^th century may not have been able to account precisely for this new medium, but parents setting rules in the 21^st century had better do so.