By Joan Biskupic

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY报刊Several Supreme Court justices challenged a California official's attempt Tuesday to defend a ban on violent video games for minors in one of the more engaging —and amusing — sessions at the high court in years. From Grimm's Fairy Tales to the Vulcans of Star Trek to the Mortal Kombat video game, the justices raised examples of violence that might concern parents yet also might be shielded from regulation based on First Amendment speech rights.Some, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, emphasized the value of violence in American culture and suggested that all video games should be protected by the First Amendment, as the lawyer representing industry groups asserted Tuesday.Scalia challenged the notion that "deviant" violence could be defined in law and posed a scenario in which some parents might be perfectly content to have their children watch violence. "They like gore," he said and quipped, "They may even like violent kids."SUPREME COURT: Case on violent games tests speech limitsBACKGROUND: "Friend of the court" briefs related to video game caseCOURT: More on major court cases, justicesOthers, such as Justice Stephen Breyer, expressed revulsion at some of the violence in today's video games and raised a hypothetical question involving "gratuitous torture … of babies." Breyer said that if parents want their children to play such games they should go buy the games for them.Though the justices peppered both sides with questions, they showed greatest skepticism for the state's argument that government should be able to restrict minors' access to violent video games, as the Supreme Court has long allowed regulation of minors' access to sexually explicit materials.Key justices across the ideological spectrum, including conservative Scalia, liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy, expressed concerns that the California law, which has never been enforced, infringed free speech.Kennedy said, "For generations there has been a societal consensus about sexual material" being exempt from some First Amendment coverage. "You're asking us to go into an entirely new area where there is no consensus."The case could have wide consequences for the entertainment industry and consumers. California officials say the ban was intended to protect children and help their parents. They say it was narrowly written to avoid infringing on adults' viewing. Video game producers and vendors counter that the law sweeps too broadly and stress that they have a voluntary system in place that helps parents choose what their children should watch.The dispute has drawn 30 sets of "friend of the court"briefs from outside groups, 26 of them from advocates siding with the video game industry and representing publishers, filmmakers, cable companies and others warning against a decision that would limit speech rights and possibly affect what is shown in films or other media.After California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed the law in 2005, it was immediately challenged by the video game industry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declared the law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, echoing other lower courts that have considered similar state laws.The 9th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected a First Amendment exception for violent materials, although it has allowed an exception for sexually explicit materials, as in a 1968 case involving a prohibition on the sale of "girlie magazines" to minors.Appealing the 9th Circuit decision, California DeputyAttorney General Zackery Morazzini stressed Tuesday that state officials were "no less concerned with a minor's access to the deviant level of violence" than they are about their access to sexual materials.He said the ban was intended to permit parents "to direct the upbringing of their children" and help parents when they cannot be present in the home."Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth," Scalia said. He suggested by his questions that violence —unlike sexual activity —should not be regulated. He said he was concerned that manufacturers would not know what games would get them into trouble.Of fairy tale, comic book and video game violence, Ginsburg asked, "What's the difference?"Morazzini said it is the interactive nature of video games that make "the young adult the aggressor."Elena Kagan, the court's newest justice, challenged Morazzini on his assertion that studies show video games harm children. She asked whether Mortal Kombat, which she described as an "iconic game" that about half the law clerks in the building knew how to play, would be covered by the ban.Morazzini said the game could be a candidate for restricted access. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether a video game that involved the torture of "a Vulcan, as opposed to a human being" would be covered by the law. Morazzini said no because the ban targets only videos in which humans are assaulted.Washington lawyer Paul Smith, arguing on behalf of the Entertainment Merchants Association and the Entertainment Software Association, faced tough questions, too, particularly from Breyer, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.Smith said the state was attempting to offer a "new free pass" in the First Amendment area for certain video games. He emphasized that the industry puts labels on videos assessing the level of violence and indicating age-appropriateness.Breyer suggested it simply made "common sense" to keep children from engaging in games that allowed them to torture and kill. "What's the difference between sex and violence," when it comes to potentially harmful effects on children, he asked.Breyer acknowledged that studies in the area were not conclusive, yet said there was enough indication that violent video games have a "tendency to increase violence." He asked why the court would not defer to the interest of California's elected legislators.Roberts and Alito said the medium might be different enough to allow regulation because in it, the child controls the maiming and killing. Roberts scoffed when Smith referred to parental controls. "Any 13-year-old canbypass parental controls in about five minutes," the chief justice said.Roberts read a particularly graphic description from the activities in the Postal 2 game in which schoolgirls beg for mercy, are decapitated, doused with gasoline and urinated on."We protect children from that," he said. "We don't actively expose them to that."Roberts noted that governments have been allowed to draw lines between minors and adults, for example, for the death penalty and prison terms.Smith said those cases did not involve free expression protected by the First Amendment.The ban prohibits the sale or rental of "violent video games" to anyone under 18. The law defines a violent video game as one that depicts "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of ahuman being" in a way that: 1) a reasonable person would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors; 2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors; 3) causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.The law added a labeling requirement: Anyone who imports into or distributes within California a "violent video game" must place a 2-inch-square "18" label on the front of the game's packaging.The law calls for a fine of up to $1,000 on anyone who violates the ban.Other states are divided on California's effort. Eleven states back California and nine are opposed, asserting that such a ban would draw law enforcement resources away from more urgent safety concerns.A decision in the dispute is likely by next summer when the justices recess for the term.。