So this year the US Supreme Court has been considering if Callifornia was allowed to ban the sales of violent games to minors. It's taken a long time to reach it's conclusion, it's worked through pretty much all other matters that it was considering since last November when the case was brought before it. Now they've decided in favour of gaming with a 7 to 2 majority, Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion; his dissent comes down to 'yeah you can do this if you want, and while you're at it ban rap music and violent tv too if you feel like' he doesn't really care about games, just that the first amendment was being stretched to support these kind of things as 'speech'. Breyer also dissented, and frankly I just don't care about him.
If the law was allowed, it would be a major blow to gaming: serious gaming would take a hit on the development side due to restricted market and retail would become a liability-infested quagmire first in cali and then all over the US as other states instituted similar rules - think Steam having to check you sitting behind your PC are actually 18 before they could sell to you. Conversely if the law was found to be unconstitutional and overturned it would be a vindication of games as an artform, enjoying the same protections as music, tv, literature etc... and that's what we got, thankfully
I'll just steal some excerpts from an old escapist article:Originally Posted by Antonin Scalia (not my favourite guy normally)
Originally Posted by Alexander Macris