GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

"There We Were, Killing Everybody," Supreme Court Justice Recalls About Playing Games Before Decision

Elena Kagan also says case was a "really hard case; super hard case."

173 Comments

Current United States Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan is again talking about the situation surrounding the high court's landmark 2011 video game ruling and how difficult it was for her. During an appearance this week at Harvard University, Kagan described the case as a "really hard case; super hard case."

In a 2011 interview, she revealed that she struggled "mightily" to come to a decision. She eventually voted in favor of striking down a law that sought to prevent retailers from selling violent video games to minors. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the law was unconstitutional.

Also in her interview, Kagan shed more light on the events surrounding the decision, reiterating that that she, along with Justice Stephen Breyer, played a violent video game before making their judgement. The morning of the hearing, she asked her clerk if there was "a violent video game that everybody will know." The clerk suggested a game (it was not named outright, but Kagan says it was an "iconic, but dated" violent video game) and then she and Breyer played it in his office.

"There we were, killing everybody left and right," Kagan recalled. The Washington Post reports that this game could have been Postal 2 or Mortal Kombat.

She went on to say that she was really into the game and wanted to play round after round, but Breyer--who voted to uphold the law--found the game appalling and disgusting and wanted to stop.

"I was like, 'Next round, next round!'" she said. "I don't know if I should say this: It's probably reflective of the fact that we did come out on different sides of this case. I like to think there are better reasons than that."

Under the law, which never took effect, retailers that sold such games to minors would be subject to a $1,000 fine. The bill would also have required "violent" video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers.

You can watch the full Harvard interview above. The video game talk starts at around 25 minutes.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 173 comments about this story
173 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for dr_zomberg
dr_zomberg

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

**** yeah! no more asking me for id when im older than the goddamn clerk. not my faul i look 17 since i was 17, 11 years ago.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for king_jamz
king_jamz

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Politician finds video game disgusting, but doesn't utter a word about corrupt politics and backroom deals. >.>

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Verityrant
Verityrant

125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

video games, like guns = scapegoat. Glad the supreme court did the right thing.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Argle
Argle

571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Verityrant: i'd say games are much more of a scapegoat than guns. I don't want to launch a 2nd amendment debate, but - you can't kill people with video games. there is at least a logic to blaming guns

Upvote • 
Avatar image for HenrySix
HenrySix

187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Argle: true. how many people have video games killed? just going off of mass shootings alone, guns have killed a lot more. that's just mass shootings, too.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jerses
jerses

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jerses

@Argle: but with a violent media you can damage a kids mind, not that he will always turn bad or trainee him to be a shooter but will probably have some issues with life and death or even violence. If you are a +18 then sure buy whatever you want you are a full man to know that the media you are watching is for entertainment purpose.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Verityrant
Verityrant

125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Verityrant

@Argle: Folks will argue that the gun is responsible for the act, the same way that folks will argue that violent media is responsible for the act. Anymore everything that can be used to promote a political agenda is responsible, instead of the psychos who commit the crimes, its stupid. To address the difference, you allude to above, while guns can be used to kill, they aren't the corrupted One Ring, they don't sit there whispering dark thoughts into your head to make you do it, but to hear some pundits tell it, you'd think that was the case. This is actually the argument presented by those who blame violent media. So its the same, a scapegoat for political purposes that fails to properly look into what drove a person to commit such acts.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aeluron1989
Aeluron1989

155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

My general rule is. Minors shouldn't touch Rated M games. IMO it gets grey when you hit 15. Some people are different. I also love they picked two most *notorious* examples. As if they are the only big games/franchises out there.


Good grief.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lithus
lithus

1311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By lithus

Honestly, at this point...they should just make violent video (Rated M) games a prohibited product like tobacco, alcohol and p0rnography. It should be illegal for minors to buy or own.

It would cut down on the petulant brats online and reduce buzz in the media. As far as violent video games "causing" violence in children and young adults...last time I checked, Charles Whitman wasn't playing GTAV before he gunned down 16 people in 1966. Just sayin...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for skyhighgam3r
SkyHighGam3r

4788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SkyHighGam3r

I've got no problems with retailers being fined for not checking ID's on products made for adults.

Don't be a Kim Davis. Do your **** job.

But, I also have no problems with Children playing violent video games. It's good for them, if you actually DO research on the subject.

I do have a problem with some absurd sticker on every one of my 'violent games' though. Screw you, Cover Art is precious. We've already got the ESRB so **** off

Either way though, Parents are the ones who have authority here, quit having other people/parties do your ****ing job parents, or you're no better than Kim Davis.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hughthehand88
HughTheHand88

444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

@skyhighgam3r: Oh look a fan of the nanny state, comparing this to kim davis proves you are a complete libtard.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aeluron1989
Aeluron1989

155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@hughthehand88: Way to go with insults and being completely disrespectful.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for pinball0wizard0
Pinball0Wizard0

30

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hughthehand88: Damn man, you don't even know this person and you are going to call them a derogatory name? They made their opinion known that retailers should do their job and not sell Mature rated games to underaged kids. Do their jobs, the exact opposite of Kim Davis.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for santinegrete
santinegrete

7103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 46

User Lists: 0

@pinball0wizard0: yep, it's typical from right winged to start with insults instead of adding something that really adds. Backers and politicians alike have that kind of attitude. Seen it in politicians from even Italy.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Henninger
Henninger

1675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Its the parents responsibility to screen the games. The kids have to ask the parents for the game. So wouldn't a responsible parent play the game & see what the kid is going to experience & then make a decision? I don't have kids. I had little cousins who played video games. I didn't let them play certain games until they were of age. I made sure their mother knew that they shouldn't be playing certain games. Now they're old enough to make their own decisions. But again, its the parents responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their child to watch, play, read, or listen to. Now yes the parent can't be there the whole time. I get that. But what goes on in your house you should have control over.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jldevoy
jldevoy

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jldevoy

The whole exercise was pointless, if it's going to interfere with profits its unlikely to be implemented in the USA, doesn't really matter what the topic is.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wilson_diabetes
Wilson_Diabetes

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Now let me ask you this: Why are people trying to ban violent video games, but not violent movies? They both have ratings on them...yet, people still tend to think it's games that influence young minds the most.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for OldDirtyCR
OldDirtyCR

108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@wilson_diabetes: There's several logical reasons for this.

1. This battle was already fought and lost. Just like the battle to ban pornogrpahy and such. I assure you that as movies became mainstream people tried very hard to get actual legal bans on violent movies. Nowadays the MPAA is much too powerful and well funded to allow anyone to get actual traction on banning violent movies.

2. BECAUSE the battle for movies was fought and lost, those people basically moved onto the next possible option. That was essentially video games. Plus the argument is that since kids are interacting with the violence, they are being influenced by it. Which on the surface has a bit more logic to it than just simply watching violence on screen.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ggregd
ggregd

850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@OldDirtyCR: This has been going on since before movie ratings (pulp magazines) and since then, before video games (comic books, Tipper Gore and music). Industry self-policing always wins out.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for naturerosa_rs
Naturerosa_rs

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Naturerosa_rs

Well at least she played the game before blindly passing a law on them....more effort than most officials put into their work . Even if it was for fun, May or may not have been.

Also any errors in my sentence May be due do the fact I am on mobile. I fixed some but knowing me missed some.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tekarukite
Tekarukite

783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@naturerosa_rs: That's what I was thinking. and it sounded like she was having fun. Which, in my awareness, is usually the point of video games. to have fun.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kelreynn
Kelreynn

119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Well since I'm in my late 30s and have an 8yo son of my own now who enjoys playing all kinds of games, I don't give a damn how violent they are. It's NOT the games.

Essentially, If my kid grows up to be an asshole... I'll take the blame all to myself.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for adamdroid
Adamdroid

58

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Kelreynn: well yeah it will be your fault if your 8 year old plays violent video games. It would never be the game's fault either way. But an 8 year old shouldn't play gta 5, the end.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kelreynn
Kelreynn

119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@adamdroid: Well noooooo shit Skolnick.

He doesn't play GTA5.... Because there's nothing but adult themes going on... So when I say 'violent games' I'm referring to all across the board. Any number of games could be called violent (by 'authorities) since you're essentially killing bad guys... From Skylanders to Destiny. Those are ok because characters aren't banging on screen or swearing their faces off.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tekarukite
Tekarukite

783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@adamdroid: I have to agree with Adamdroid. ultimately your decision, Kelreynn, but also your fault.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ben_halpin
ben_halpin

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well, if it stops kids from ruining my enjoyment of GTAV then I'm all for it!

Here in the UK the game has a big '18' slapped on the cover and I hate having to mute american 5 year olds constantly. The industry needs more clear distinction between games for kids and games for adults.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kelreynn
Kelreynn

119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@ben_halpin: I feel your pain brotha!!! But it'll never happen on this side of the pond I don't think.

I think it'd be easier anyways to enable players the ability to filter their own preferences... Like include/exclude specific age ranges or something. Sure some kids will still lie about their DOB but at least you can block/report the ones who get through. The kids who DO do that? Those are the griefers you'd block anyway when they came of age. Lol

Upvote • 
Avatar image for BelaidKL
BelaidKL

734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

Whenever I see an article on how violent videogames effect children all I can think is how children shouldn't even be playing violent games in the first place

Upvote • 
Avatar image for justbefahad
JustBeFahad

1094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By JustBeFahad

We have ESRB Ratings to aid parents in deciding what content their children should have access to. Plus, its common knowledge that violent video games don't have as much effect on minors as some say. Any law locking minors out of violent games would have been unnecessary and would have had a detrimental effect on the games industry as a business, so I'd say she made the right call.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for crushbrain
crushbrain

191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By crushbrain

So I guess her parents never taught her the difference between real and pretend?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xxmavr1kxx
xxmavr1kxx

556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@crushbrain: UMmm she liked playing the game. How does your comment even relate tot he article.

Oh yea, you didnt read it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bajanbones88
BajanBones88

51

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@xxmavr1kxx: Two women in the article. One found the game appalling.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jayz0ned
jayz0ned

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bajanbones88: One woman in the article. Unless "Stephen" is suddenly a female's name...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bajanbones88
BajanBones88

51

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@jayz0ned: I read that as Stephanie, lol my bad.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jayz0ned
jayz0ned

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@CFitzzz: There's only one female mentioned in the article... The other was Justice Stephen Breyer, a dude.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Smosh150
Smosh150

3050

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By Smosh150

@CFitzzz: I think he realizes that, but crush was not specific as to which one he was talking about. Both judges seemed ignorant on the effects of video games, but Kagan seemed to take it as it is, a game and admitted to it being fun. I mean the article is mainly about Kagan and her experiences with the games on this case, not Beyer, so xxmavr1kxx's assumption is not unfounded.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jayz0ned
jayz0ned

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Crush was specific to which one he was talking about. Unless you use "her" when referring to a guy (the other judge)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MondasM
MondasM

1900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Edited By MondasM

i support the notion that games should be sold to minors according to the games' ratings, it's the parents' decision to allow the level of violence their children are exposed to....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for justbefahad
JustBeFahad

1094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@MondasM: Doesn't your second statement contradict your first statement? Or maybe I just understood it incorrectly.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MondasM
MondasM

1900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@justbefahad: what i meant was, that if the parents allow their kids to be exposed to some kind of violence, it should be their preference, not the kids...

i could play violent games when i was a minor, but back then there weren't such ratings or such violent and technologically advanced graphics, however i have decapitated many of my opponents and have been decapitated by them in barbarian a lot... :)

the choice should be the parents', same is true for alcohol or any other controlled substance...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for justbefahad
JustBeFahad

1094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@MondasM: Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jayz0ned
jayz0ned

383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@justbefahad: Children shouldn't be able to buy violent videogames themselves, but parents should be able to buy games for them. It is possible for kids to get money themselves and buy products.

Upvote •