The Supreme Court of the US just held an oral argument this morning in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case, a monumental hearing for the video game industry. This case is arguing whether or not a state law that restricts violent video games is in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. On the side of California (Schwarzenegger) is Zackery P. Morazzini, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of Sacramento, California who argued that violent video games should be restricted because they are harmful to minors.

On the side of the Entertainment Merchants Association and the gaming industry was Jenner and Block LLP Partner Paul M. Smith Paul M. Smith who argued that such a restriction would be in violation of the First Amendment, arguing that games are a form of free speech and artistic work.

The hearing is now over and the justices will be deliberating the outcome for the next several months most likely, however the case seems to support the gaming industry in the end, although that’s just my personal opinion. The petitioners could not provide a solid definition of said violence or how a minor should be defined. You can download the full transcript below or jump past the break for interesting snippets I took out of the transcript.

Schwarzenegger vs. EMA Transcript (PDF)

Mr. Morazzini: The “obscene level of violence, if you will, is especially harmful to minors”   (Refers to Gentile and Gentile study suggesting video games are exemplary teachers of aggression)

Justice Sotomayor (in response): “One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?”

Justice Scalia: “That same argument could have been made when movies first came out … Every time there’s a new technology you can make that argument” (When discussing new medium and unknown sociological results of it)

Justice Scalia: “How is the manufacturer to know whether a particular violent game is covered or not?”

Justice Scalia: “What about excessive glorification of drinking, movies that have too much drinking? Does it have an effect on minors? I suppose so.” (So should we also create new laws and statues restricting these even more so?)

Justice Scalia: “So that’s basically all this is, is a – a law to help parents, is that right?”

Justice Scalia: “You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship … that would be very nice”

Mr. Smith: “We do have a new medium here, Your Honor, but we have a history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly overreacting to them, thinking the sky is falling, our children are going to be turned into criminals”

Mr. Smith: “Well, the events in a video game – what happens in the plot is a combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. There is a creative aspect coming at it from the other side.”

Mr. Smith: “The child is helping to make the plot, determine what happens in the events that appear on the screen, just as an actor helps to portray what happens in a play. You are acting out certain elements of the play and you are contributing to the events that occur and adding a creative element of your own.”

Follow this author on Twitter.