Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

News

Supreme Court Rules CA Violent Video Game Sale Ban Unconstitutional

Before you read more...
Dear reader, we're asking you to help us keep local news available for all. Your financial support keeps our stories free to read, instead of hidden behind paywalls. We believe when reliable local reporting is widely available, the entire community benefits. Thank you for investing in your neighborhood.

A ruling today by the Supreme Court may be felt as a loss for California Governor Jerry Brown, but a boon for youngsters with a love of video games and some cash in pocket. A 7-2 ruling made today "determined that California’s 2005 violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment," according to the Sacramento Bee.

In his former post as state Attorney General, Brown had championed the ban of sales of violent video games to minors, as signed into law by then-governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, both among those voting to strike down the ban, said the law as-written was "well-intentioned," but still not in line with the U.S. Constitution. Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas were the sole dissenters. Oral arguments for the case were heard back in November.

Today's ruling is limited to California's law, however there are nearly a dozen other states who came forward to side with California regarding the ban. The ban was put into law over six years ago, but has never been enforced. Lawmakers at the time believed the restriction was a way to help protect minors' "physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development."