With the State of California and the video game industry getting their day in the U.S. Supreme Court, Game Hunters tagged along to observe.  During an hour of arguments this morning, the justices peppered the attorneys presenting the opposing cases -- California supervising deputy attorney general Zackery P. Morazzini and Paul M. Smith of Washington, D.C. for the Entertainment Merchants Association.  MORE ON THE CASE: Today's coverage from USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic and last week's story and video on the case.  The state of California wants the court to uphold its law making the sale of violent video games to minors a crime of up to $1,000 per transaction. The EMA argues that the law's definition of violence is vague and violates the First Amendment by infringing on free speech.  When asked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "why are video games special" in needing such a ban, Morazzini noted the "interactive nature of violent video games" makes players "the aggressor."  The legislation treats violent games similarly to laws prohibiting the sale of sexual material that may not be obscene from minors. "California sees that the developmental harm that could be caused to minors (from violent games) … is no less significant" than that, Morazzini said.  Although a decision is not expected until this summer, the justices seemed leery of upholding such a law on violent content. An agency created by the law could be called "the California Office of Censorship," Justice Antonin Scalia said. Earlier, he noted that "I am concerned about the producer of the games who has to know what he has to do to comply with the law. … I really wouldn't know what to do as a manufacturer."  Smith said that California is asking the court to grant "a new free pass" for the state to "deny constitutional protection to some ill-defined subset of expressive works, and I would submit not just video games, but necessarily movies, books and any other expressive work that ... portrays violence in a way that some court somewhere, some day, would decide is deviant and offensive."  As was similar with the reception to Morazzini, he was quickly cut off with questions from the judges. (There were no long John Grisham-like attorney soliloquies. The presenting attorneys were often even cut off with another question before answering the previous one.)  Justice Samuel Alito posed that video games are "a new medium that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time the First Amendment was ratified."  The game most mentioned was Postal 2, released in 2003, with a Mature rating. But Mortal Kombat was name-dropped by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked Morazzini whether it would be restricted by the statute. "It's a candidate, your honor, but I haven't played the game," he said. So would Postal 2 and Madworld, he added later.  Among those in the gallery watching the proceedings was Ted Price, founder of Insomniac Games, who appeared in USA TODAY's story last week on the case. "I think there are more (justices) with us than against us," he said outside on the steps of the court afterwards.  Smith and ESA president & CEO Michael Gallagher were surrounded by journalists for post-session comments. "What is at stake is free speech," Gallagher said. Nearby, G4TV's Adam Sessler interviewed Leland Yee, the California state senator who originally proposed the bill, for a broadcast later today at 7 p.m. ET/4 PT on Attack of the Show (more info here.)  Also at the court were Kotaku's Stephen Totilo and Chris Morris whose outlets include CNBC.com, Gamasutra and Variety.  Prior to and after the session, there were some sparse demonstrations in favor of video game free speech. But most appeared to be industry-driven rather than grass roots-based.  About half an hour before the justices took their seats, visiting reporters such as myself were led to what amounted to restricted view seating to the left of the Supreme Court's bench. Peering between the ornate bronze gate doors bracketing the room, I could see Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.  Afterwards, in the press room, reporters who regularly cover the Supreme Court broke down the session, "just like we do after an E3 press conference," Morris quipped.  However, it certainly felt like there was more at stake.  You can read a transcript of the proceedings here and an audio transcript should be posted later this week.  Readers, what are your thoughts on the proposed law to ban sales of violent video games to minors?
High court hears case to ban violent video game sales to minors - Game Hunters: In search of video games and interactive awesomeness - USATODAY.com - Game Hunters: In search of video games and interactive awesomeness