Originally published Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

U.S. Supreme Court got it right: Video-game ban restricts free speech

The U.S. Supreme Court was right to strike down a ban on violent video games. Game makers use of warning labels and the eyes of vigilant parents offer children better protection than censorship.

PREV of NEXT

Top comments Hide / Show comments

So it's okay for a child to purchase a program where they can abduct, beat, and kill a... (June 30, 2011, by kawrider) Read more

kawrider - if a parent does not want their child to have such a game then it is up to... (June 30, 2011, by Rainy Daze) Read more

We need to maintain the distinction between minors (those being created by society as... (July 1, 2011, by CraigMason) Read more

Read all 17 comments > Post a comment >

IN striking down a ban on violent video games, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed once and for all the notion that video games deserve constitutional protection as much as other expressions of speech, including literature, plays and movies.

Extending free-speech protections to video games is not only right, it's an important distinction given how many states, including Washington, have tried to restrict access to them.

The court's 7-2 ruling offers many of the same reasons cited by lower courts to explain why restrictions and bans on video games aren't a good idea. For one, it hasn't been proved video games are harmful to minors. Nor do bans and restrictions of them offer the least-restrictive method of protecting children from violent content.

The high court's case revolved around a 2005 California statute restricting the sale and rental of computer and video games. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ban, saying the state was asking it "to boldly go where no court has ever gone before." Or should want to go.

Some video games can pack an aggressive punch to young psyches. "World of Warcraft" and "Halo" are among the games that can leave players rattled by graphic, violent imagery and realistic sound effects. Other games impart questionable values — for example, "Grand Theft Auto," where the hero is a criminal.

But debate among social scientists and parents about whether these games are dangerous lacks any definitive proof. Studies linking violent video games to aggression in children offer a correlation between the two, not evidence of causation, something Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, pointed out.

Censorship of video games isn't helpful. What has proved helpful is the Entertainment Software Rating Board's rating system. Credit also retailers who have voluntarily restricted sales of mature-rated content to minors.

Lastly, a reminder to Mom and Dad that, ultimately, they are responsible for the games their children play.