Locals Applaud Supreme Court Ruling on Video Game Sales

By a 7-2 vote Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2005 California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to people under age 18.

The court majority said the games are protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.

Moorpark residents applauded the decision.

“I think they shouldn’t have the right to restrict Californians or anybody,” said gamer Andrew Rousseve. “We have enough restrictions. That’s ridiculous.”

Rousseve agreed with justices’ notes that video games are akin to some children’s stories, citing Hansel and Gretel, which he called “very gory and very violent,” as an example.

Parent Josh Morrin, speaking with a Patch reporter outside video game shop Gamestop, found a flaw with that line of thinking.

“With a story, you’re just listening, but with a video game, you’re actively killing someone, hacking them up with a chainsaw or blowing them away,” he said.

Still, Morrin applauded the Supreme Court’s decision.

“I’m not sure why violence is protected and nudity isn’t,” he said, “but either way, it shouldn’t be up to the government. It’s the parents’ job to monitor their kids and make decisions concerning what they see and read and play.”

That seemed to be the prevailing opinion among Moorpark residents who spoke with Patch. Marilyn Voorhees, a parent who was shopping for video games at the Moorpark Target store Monday, said she detests violent video games, especially those that depict violence on humans—which is specifically what the law would have banned.

“We don’t like them and we don’t allow them in our house,” she said. “But that’s our choice.”

She said parents should be responsible for monitoring their kids and guiding them to make appropriate decisions.

“It’s lazy and ignorant parents who don’t, and I don’t like the trend of letting the government make parenting decisions for us,” she said.

In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Even when the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply.

"Like protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages. That suffices to confer First Amendment protection," Scalia wrote.

Scalia was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen in the majority opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alioto and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority but for different reasons. They felt the California law was too vague. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Beyer filed individual dissents.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), who authored the bill, responded to the ruling with a statement on his website, accusing members of the Supreme Court of putting “the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children.”

“As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community,” Yee said in his statement. “It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”

The court's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose in 2005 by two industry groups, the Entertainment Merchants Association and the Entertainment Software Association.

The high court upheld rulings by U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte of San Jose in 2007 and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2009, which struck down the law.

Lee, who was then an assemblyman, authored the law in 2005. It was blocked from going into effect by an injunction issued by Whyte.

Both Target and Gamestop restrict the sale of M-rated video games to people 17 years of age and older by checking ID.