The debate on whether video games are considered forms of protected speech has been ongoing, as there is a large number of violent games that are seen as harmful for younger audiences. In 2011, the Supreme Court held that video games fall under the category of protected free speech. Thus, laws, such as the California 2005 law, that would prohibit the sales of violent video games to minor individuals without the supervision or consent of their parents or guardians would be considered unconstitutional (Patel).
Similar to protected literature, plays, and movies that have existed long before video games, the latter also transfer ideas and social messages with the help of multiple literary devices. Such devices may include music, characters, dialogue, and plot, which go hand-in-hand with players’ interactions with the virtual world. These characteristics of video games, whether violent or not, suffice to confer their protection under the First Amendment, which means that no restrictions should be allowed.
It is important to protect video games under Constitutional free speech law because, no matter how violent and graphic they may be, they represent an integral element of current culture. Video games, the same way as movies or books, provide social commentary on the current ways of life.
Moreover, they represent “new ways to explore human relationships and the wider world” (Schiesel). Therefore, critics of the Constitutional free speech law protection of video games should understand that video games can be learning tools for future generations. They do not encourage violence or unlawful behaviors among youth; rather, they provide a perspective on the reasons for violence among people and teach a lesson about the consequences of one’s actions.
Works Cited
Patel, Nilay. “Supreme Court Says Video Games Are Protected Free Speech, California Can’t Regulate Sales of Violent Games: A Complete Analysis.” The Verge. 2011. Web.
Schiesel, Seth. “Supreme Court Has Ruled: Now Games Have a Duty.” The New York Times. 2011. Web.