Supreme Court to Rule on CA Ban of Violent Video Games

Arnold is trying to take away your games. Don’t let him.

California passed a law that would ban the sale of all “violent” video games to individuals under 18. The case of whether or not this law is Constitutional is going before the US Supreme Court. Their ruling could have far reaching implications for how games are produced, who gets to play them and how they look. Even if you aren’t under 18 this court case could be just the first step to larger and stricter standards that will affect everyone. Jeff Green lays out why you should care. The Entertainment Consumers Association calls this case the “single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.”

No one on the Supreme Court has ever played a video game. None of the lawyers for either side have ever played a video game. These people are going to be setting down law that will affect tens of millions of gamers and young people across the country, but their only knowledge of video games comes from the testimonies of people like Andrew Schlafly, who paint video games as little more than realistic murder simulators.

NYRA isn’t going to let them get away with this. NYRA defends the rights of youth when they are challenged across the country. As gamers, we need to make it clear that video games are more than random violence and that no one should be denied access to them. NYRA is working on an Amicus Brief to submit to the Supreme Court, but we need your help.

Since we are one of the few organizations working on this actually made up of gamers, we need to work with the gaming community to strengthen our argument. The Supreme Court doesn’t realize the importance of video games. We need your testimonies about their social, artistic, and political value to help the justices understand just what they would be taking away if they let this law stand.

Political speech is treated differently than non-political speech. The more examples we can provide of games, especially violent ones, having some kind of political content the better. If we collect enough testimony to convince the court that video games have political value, their distribution will be protected under the First Amendment. This very well could be the silver bullet that saves video games in this case. If we convince the Court that games are political, not mindless, then we win. Simple as that.

Click to expand...