The high court’s misguided decision on violent video games

[Commentary] The Supreme Court has decreed that the government is on solid ground when it bans the sale of “girlie” magazines to a minor but tramples on the Constitution when it tries to block that minor from buying a violent video game in which he can (virtually) mutilate and murder a realistic depiction of a woman. The distinction makes no sense — in the real or the virtual world.

A key precedent in the case involved a ruling from last term that struck down a law that criminalized depictions of animal cruelty. That law made it a crime for anyone to produce, buy or sell such things as “crush” videos, where small animals are tortured or killed for the sexual gratification of viewers. We agreed with the court in that case: Even this kind of reprehensible “speech” is entitled to First Amendment protection; the government, by and large, should not be in the business of telling adults what kinds of videos they may view.

The California law is different because it dealt only with reasonable limitations on minors’ access to extremely violent games that even the video game industry acknowledges are inappropriate. The rights of minors are often justifiably curtailed in ways that would violate the Constitution if applied to adults. Take, for example, prohibitions against selling alcohol and tobacco products to juveniles. The California law did nothing to infringe on the rights of adults to purchase violent video games, and manufacturers remained free to create and market these videos. They could even sell them to minors — as long as a parent or legal guardian approved.

When California enacted its law, the Federal Trade Commission reported that some 70 percent of minors between the ages of 13 and 16 were able to buy violent video games rated “M” for “mature.” The industry — wisely and in an effort to ward off further regulation — has done a commendable job since then in beefing up enforcement, but an FTC update shows that some 20 percent of minors are still able to buy age-inappropriate games. The industry must surely be breathing a sigh of relief after the court’s ruling, but the diminished threat of government intervention should in no way impede efforts to keep the most violent games out of the hands of children.