The Supreme Court said today that it will take up the FCC’s request to hear arguments about how much authority the agency has to police indecent programming. A lower court had shot down two FCC enforcement actions — that infamous naked buttocks shot on a 2003 episode of ABC’s NYPD Blue, and a pair of f-bombs during two live Billboard Music Awards shows — saying that the regulators’ concept of what’s “indecent” is too vague. The Obama administration has countered that those decisions hurt the agency’s ability to oversee their jurisdiction. Now the high court could weigh in. Meanwhile, as part of a slew of decisions announced today, the Supreme Court struck down a California law that bans the sale of violent video games to minors, calling it a violation of free speech and thereby unconstitutional. The creative industry — the MPAA, Disney and Sony among them – mobilized against the law, which was passed in 2005 but never enacted due to the legal wranglings. ”Our cases hold that minors are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in summarizing the court’s 7-2 vote from the bench. ”Government has no free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which they may be exposed.”


Nice to see a little common sense.
Okay, I don’t understand everything about US law – so explain to me how it is legal for theaters to refuse to sell kids tickets to R-rated movies but it is illegal ban the sale of violent video games to kids.
Is it because the MPAA system is “voluntary”? I use that term loosely, coz we all know film can’t make a dime without its ratings or even with an NC-17.
It’s an excellent question. In a nutshell, yes, the ratings system is voluntary. It was created in 1922 by the studios in a response to potential government censorship. But, as we can tell from this current ruling, the government would not have been allowed to censor films.
What a dilemma you raised. Nonetheless, I do agree with the court’s decision. I am so tired of the government trying to run our lives. If parents don’t want their kids playing these games, they don’t have to buy them.
The ESRB video game rating is also a self imposed system. This ruling would seem to open the door for any minor to attend an R, X, or NC-17 film, as well as purchase any “adult” themed media from any retailer.
I am not against this. Good parenting will always be better than a restictive society. The problem is that,once again, we condome violence and condemn sex.
That should be “condone.” I should really check my typing before hitting send.
I thought you meant “condom” and was about to agree with your point on safe sex.
There is a difference between video games and movies. You buy a game to bring into your home, but you go into a theater to watch a movie. Thus the ruling doesn’t apply to the latter since theaters are private property and can refuse entry to anyone they want. The rating system is technically voluntary (like our military) even if social, financial and other pressures force its adherence.
However, I would argue (despite not being a lawyer) that this ruling certainly allows minors to buy or rent a DVD of an R-rated movie, unless if it has the rating for “obscenity” related reasons, which is not considered by the courts to be protected speech. Justice Breyer’s dissent seems to me to be an argument to strike down obscenity laws too, but that’s just my personal opinion.
Good post and great question.
The answer: greed. Greed makes it possible. Haven’t you heard: “Where there is greed, there is a way”. Kids spend shitloads of money on violent games, they are the biggest consumers of videogames, and now this ridiculous law wants to hurt the business of Honest and Well-Meaning companies by refusing to sell to their biggest customers. Outrageous!
And where exactly are these kids getting $300 for a game console and $60 for a new release game? A magic money tree in the yard?