Slots Logic reviews and rates the world's top online slots.
Visit Casino Advisor for the best online casino reviews, news and much more.
|
As we reported briefly in Euroslot’s October issue, in early November the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear oral arguments in the California video-game violence case initiated by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The case, Schwarzenegger vs Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) and Entertainment Software Association (ESA), focuses on a California law aiming to ban the sale of violent home-played games to minors.
It goes back to 2005, when California passed a law criminalising retailers, amusement operators and Website owners who permit under-18 consumers to rent, buy or otherwise access video games containing allegedly “violent” graphics. Many supporters equate these graphics with pornography, while others accuse them of desensitising children to violence.
But a federal appeals court ruled against California, claiming the law violated the protection of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is that court’s decision that Schwarzenegger is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn.
Its nine justices will consider whether the government can restrict violence as speech when minors are the potential audience. It raises similar issues to the court’s debates decades ago on sexually explicit content in movies.
Early reports reveal the difficulty in predicting each justice’s response. Apparently, they are not conforming to their customary philosophical types and splitting along conservative-liberal lines, as they frequently do.
A broad coalition of groups, including the industry’s Amusement & Music Operators Association (AMOA) and the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA), opposes restrictions. The top law-enforcement officials in ten states, and numerous other groups, believe that enforcing any bans will be costly and ineffective. They also fear that if enacted, such a law could be used in support of a “video games made me do it” excuse by violent offenders in future.
An attorney for the video-games industry has recommended creating a rating system without resorting to censorship. That lawyer did agree, however, that there should be controls on the availability to minors of specific explicitly violent games.
This is hardly the first legislative attempt at enacting a law to ban youths’ access to so-called “violent” games, such as Rockstar Games’ Grand Theft Auto series (pictured). Several cities and states have failed because of federal court rulings on First Amendment grounds.
But if Schwarzenegger is successful, the case could impact the coin-op industry, since many of the same titles, graphics and action used in video games can also appear on arcade-style games.
Indeed, although technically the case “only” deals with video games, it could affect the amusement and music industry’s entire future. For decades, the amusement industry has fought hard to protect itself from bans on redemption cranes and other forms of coin-operated entertainment.
Yet if the court permits California to prohibit distribution of violent games to minors, it could set a precedent allowing any city or state government to impose restrictions and bans on games, music and other amusement devices that they deem “harmful” to children.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected next spring.
