How Should Society Regulate Violent Video Games for Minors?

“Video games communicate ideas—and even messages.”

Those were the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion Monday, agreeing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento that California’s 2005 attempt to ban anyone under 18 years of age from buying or renting violent video games is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

While that’s certainly great news for the video industry, which reportedly did business worth at least $18 billion in 2010, it’s safe to say that many parents in Eagle Rock and beyond probably side with the two dissenting judges in the Supreme Court who disagreed with the majority opinion.

America’s founding fathers, wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, did not envision freedom of speech to “include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.”

The highest court’s other dissenting voice—that of Justice Stephen Breyer—deemed the issue as less about censorship and more about education. "Sometimes, children need to learn by making choices for themselves," Breyer wrote. "Other times, choices are made for children—by their parents, by their teachers, and by the people acting democratically through their governments."

In a sign that the views of Breyer and Thomas have wider support than a 7-2 vote suggests, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito indicated they would be willing to reconsider their votes. "I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem," wrote Alito, suggesting that he might support a narrower state law.

Given that at least for now the state cannot hope to directly protect children against violent video games, any responsibility for doing so falls squarely on parents—and to a lesser extent on teachers.

So in an attempt to further the debate about the effect of video games on children, Eagle Rock Patch has decided to ask parents in the neighborhood which side of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling they stand on.

Do parents agree with Justice Scalia, who wrote that while states have the right to restrict children’s access to pornography, video games fall in the same category as literature, films and plays—and cannot therefore be banned outright? ("Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore,” Scalia wrote.)

Or do parents agree with Justice Breyer’s assertion that it makes no sense “to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

To set the ball rolling, our "Parent Node" Columnist Tracy Talbert has the following comments about Monday’s ruling:

• “I find it interesting that the Court finds it alright to limit access to sexual content, but not violent content.”  

• “I do think violent video games can inspire violence in children, although I have not actually witnessed it—it is just a hunch.”

• “I know that the parts of the brain that control reason and higher thought are not fully formed in human beings until they are at least 20. So I think adults need to be involved in helping young people make wise choices until they have gained their full abilities. That would include what media they consume. Parents should be the best judge of that, but so often are just not available.” 

• “We, as a society, restrict movies, alcohol, porn and cigarettes—violent materials don't seem that different to me. It should be tightly regulated, but I would not go as far as a ban.”

• “Video games are pretty much banished from our house in general anyway. There is too much real life to experience. But then my kids are still young. We'll probably get infected one of these days.”