The Supreme Court will soon begin hearing arguments related to a controversial California law that prohibits minors from renting or purchasing video games that are described as too violent.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has supported the game law, saying it helps protect children against violent video games.
All stores found to sell violent video games to minors may face up to a $1,000 fine. The law describes violent games in which "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," with a belief today’s voluntary rating system isn’t proficient enough as is.
The video game law has been through a lot over the past few years, with it deemed unconstitutional related to minors’ rights to play these games. Furthermore, members of the legal community are surprised the Supreme Court wanted to hear this case at all, with other states finding similar laws unconstitutional.
The case also continues to serve as a financial burden that continues to drain precious California resources. The state has a major budget crisis that has lawmakers and the public scrambling for solutions, including cases like the violent game law that has met resistance from game studios and many gamers.
There are a number of studies related to what (if any) impact playing video violent games has on young children and teenagers. Some argue violent video games can lead to diminished social skills, poor relationships with peers, and possible anti-social or violent behavior.
I don't think it's up to the government to try to censor and prohibit minors from playing certain game titles -- it should be up to the parents and guardians to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children. I'm not surprised California decided to create this law, but expect it to be thrown out at some point.
Until there is conclusive evidence that shows violent video games directly lead to adolescent violence, I think that resistance to these types of laws will continue.
