and six other states can forbid the sale to minors of violent video
games that show images of humans being maimed, killed or sexually
assaulted.
But in something of a surprise, the high court said it would hear
The move came less than a week after the justices,
in an 8-1 ruling, struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law that
made it a crime to sell videos of illegal acts of animal cruelty. The
court’s opinion gave two reasons for declaring the law
unconstitutional. First, the justices said the law created a new
category of unprotected expression, and second, they said it was so
broad that it could reach beyond the torture of animals and apply to
out-of-season hunting.
While the animal cruelty case was pending, the court held on to the appeal in the
case of violent video games. Based on last week’s ruling, the justices
might have been expected to deny the appeal and to allow the law to
expire.
Instead, they voted to grant the appeal and hear the case in the fall.
This suggests some justices believe that the
law could be upheld as narrowly targeted because it focuses on minors
and applies to videos that “appeal to a deviant and morbid interest” in
violence, as the state has argued.
The other states that have enacted similar laws include
“We have a responsibility to our kids and our
communities to protect against the effects of games that depict
ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies. I am pleased
the
and I look forward to a decision upholding this important law that
gives parents more tools to protect their children, including the
opportunity to determine what video games are appropriate.”
ban, which was signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2005, would impose
a civil fine on retailers who sell or rent to minors video games that
were labeled as violent. But before it could go into effect, the
———
(c) 2010, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
