"Hasta la Vista, Baby": Governator Attempts to Terminate Violent Video Games In Cali

This Tuesday (11/2/10) the Supreme Court began their proceedings of the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc. case in which the California state governor is fighting to uphold his ban on the sale and rental of violent video games to minors. Although similar bans have been enacted by nearly a dozen states, including Florida and Texas, almost all have been overruled by the federal courts; a trend which reflects the court's increasing propensity to uphold the strength of the federal government. Because the case is being presented before the high courts, a circumstance that indicates dissensus in the lower, some have speculated that the Supreme Court could be ready to reconsider the effect of violence on children. The Supreme Court has developed a tendency to reject first Amendment exceptions for violent materials but has permitted an exception for those that are sexually explicit. The trial began with District Attorney General Zachary Morazzini developing his argument based on the Warren court ruling of Ginsberg v. New York (1968) which allowed state regulation of minor's access to sexual material. He urged the court to remain consistent with this decision when also considering access to violent material in this contemporary trial.

A transcript of Tuesday’s hearing depicts a battle of ethical wit between Morazzini and some very entertaining justices, including Justice Scalia who sarcastically calls into question the first amendment right of old fables. “Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth…..Are you going to ban them too?” While some, including Morazzini, argue that video games’ effects are heightened because of their interactive nature, research is still pending as to whether this proposition holds real validity. PCWorld blogger JR Raphael comments that “the decision could have serious implications…..I have every reason to be concerned about this decision. And so do you.” Many are concerned with the superfluous control measures that this law would provide, being that videogames are already somewhat regulated by a rating system. The dispute in question also implicates the right of the federal government to "protect" certain individuals (in this case minors) from harmful material through reinterpreting the first amendment. A decision to endorse the constitutionality of this law could represent an advance towards limiting first amendment rights of general citizens as well.

There's also the "Governator" factor, which may or may not have a profound effect on the court's decision, but surely brings an interesting element to the debate over the law's ethical righteousness. Journalist Nina Totenberg of NPR, notes the “irony in this dispute” in which “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made tens of millions of dollars portraying the 'Terminator'……. is asking the Supreme Court to uphold a ban on selling minors similar violent portrayals in video games”. The film series also has an extremely violent “third-person shooter” video game on the market with a youtube trailer you can view here. Whether or not you agree with the California state law to ban video game access to minors, it’s almost impossible to escape the hypocrisy at play here. Fortunately for first amendment enthusiasts, young gamers, and the general american population, it’s not looking so good for the Governator's ban, with the majority of the court remaining skeptical of its legitimacy. *Fingers crossed*