Although the parties agree that videogames are constitutionally protected expression, the State of  California  nevertheless asks this Court to find that violent videogames “are simply not worthy of constitutional protection when sold to minors without parental participation.”3 The State asks the Court to make this judgment while providing only a single example of a game it deems to be violent—and offering essentially no context regarding the expressive nature of games that could fall under the Act. Meanwhile, one of the State’s amici supporters, seizing on the State’s theme that games are valueless, asks the Court to declare that videogames are not protected expression at all.

It makes little sense, however, to consider the extent to which constitutional protections apply to an expressive medium absent familiarity with the medium itself. And because videogames are not yet as ubiquitous in mainstream culture as books or movies, this familiarity cannot be presumed. IGDA and AIAS accordingly submit this brief in part to provide background about videogames.

Read/Download Brief: IGDA-AIAS Amicus Brief (2010) (PDF)