Gamertell

In an op-ed published last month, we covered California’s attempt to renew their anti-gaming campaign. The Associated Press covered the Court of Appeals hearing to overturn a court decision that said California’s anti-violent games sales law was unconstitutional.

California Deputy Attorney General Zachery Morazzini asked the courts to uphold the law. He noted that it’s the state’s right to help parents who don’t want their children exposed to violent games. As a rebuttal, Paul Smith, the attorney for the Video Software Dealers Association and Entertainment Software Association in this case, noted that if you restrict or censor one form of entertainment, in this case video games, there’s no telling where the line will finally be drawn. Paul Smith was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “Maybe a state will say we shouldn’t let you sell, without a parent’s permission, books about homosexuality or sex education or birth control. I think it’s a very scary prospect.”

The judges appeared to agree with this sentiment.Though they did question the industry’s stance on mandatory labels, much like those parental advisory labels for music with explicit lyrics. As an objection to the mandatory labeling, Smith brought up the fact that the industry already voluntarily rates games released and that the label would be unnecessary. Judge Alex Kozinski asked why the industry shouldn’t be forced to label video games since the parents would still have the choice of whether or not to get a game for their children. Kozinski is quoted as saying, “I don’t see why this is a big censorship thing.”

Though a decision has not been made on whether to uphold California’s law that would restrict sales of violent games to minors, one will be reached within the coming months. Due to the hotly contested issue, no matter which way the Court of Appeals decides, it may reach the levels of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read [The Associated Press] Also Read [San Jose Mercury News] Also Read [Gamertell]