Over the last decade or two, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly extended the First Amendment's formidable legal shield to the Web.
In 1997, the justices tossed out the Communications Decency Act, saying Congress could not outlaw making "indecent" material available on the Internet. Last year, the law's benighted successor met the same fate, as did a law targeting animal cruelty videos that the court rejected in April.
Today the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss during oral arguments whether to grant video games the same favored kind of laissez-faire treatment.
Unlike those other cases, the law in question is a California statute, not one enacted by Congress. But it's received a flurry of attention from all around the country, with everyone from conservative advocacy groups and pediatric associations saying that the law is constitutional to Microsoft, Activision Blizzard, the Motion Picture Association, and payment-processor Vindicia arguing it is not.
Sean Bersell, vice president of public policy for the Entertainment Merchants Association, which sued to overturn the California law, told CNET that upholding the California law would "open the floodgates to a whole host of pernicious legislation" around the country.
"We hope the justices will again reaffirm their commitment to the First Amendment," Bersell said.
Tech Insider
