In a landmark case for the videogame industry, the United States Supreme Court has ruled against California's video game violence law in the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, declaring it unconstitutional.
The decision of the nine Justices was announced today, the law ruled invalid with a vote of 7-2. The court's full decision can be read here.
The ruling will offer the same legal protection that books, plays, and movies enjoy, saying that games “communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium.
The court also dismissed the unconvincing evidence of studies into links between videogame violence and violent behaviour in players.
"Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposureto violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."
It goes on to point out that since California has "declined to restrict" other media, such as saturday morning cartoons, its videogame regulation is "wildly underinclusive" and raises doubts about whether the State is "pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint."
The bill, which was written by California State Senator Leland Yee and signed into law by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proposed that violent videogames should be classed as X-rated entertainment and made it a felony to sell such games to anyone under 18.
The Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association) was immediately challenged by the game industry and retailers.
Oral arguments began last year, in which the EMA set out its case against the bill to the supreme court.
"The court’s decision goes to great length to compare video games with other forms of expression (from comic books to movies), and even highlights the degree of gore found in the clearly-acceptable Snow White," University of East Anglia Law School lecturer Dr. Daithí Mac Síthigh told us. "Not only did this confirm that games are being taken seriously at the highest legal levels, it also placed a heavy burden on California to justify the restriction. The court wasn't persuaded in the slightest by the evidence put forward regarding a link between gaming and aggression - which must come as a disappointment to those who have been arguing these theories for some time.
"The need to be aware of specific issues for under-18s /was/ noted, but even this wasn't enough to justify the intervention. In the US, this means that the self-regulatory system of the ESA will continue to be the main form of video game regulation for some time, and other states that had considered following [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/eleven-states-back-california-game-law] California’s lead will probably cease their efforts."
Síthigh adds that UK developers already dealing with multiple ratings systems around the world will be relieved that they don't have to add a California-only system to the list.
While this is clearly a great result for the US game industry, it could have potential ramifications for the UK where PEGI and BBFC represent existing self-regulatory and statutory controls.
"Should there be other disputes on the application of videogame law, the findings of the American courts may be useful - particularly as regards the impact of any regulatory decision on the right to freedom of expression as contained in the Human Rights Act," explains Síthigh. "However, the BBFC already takes the HRA into account and one assumes that this will continue under the Video Standards Council for PEGI."