A California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to children has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling upholds decisions by lower courts that determined the ban violates the U.S. First Amendment right to freedom of expression and is therefore unconstitutional. In doing so, it confirms that video games have the same protection under the First Amendment as books and movies.

The California law, adopted in 2005, affects sales and rentals to children and teens under the age of 18. It allows for fines of up to $1,000 for violations, but the law has never come into effect due to court challenges by the video game industry. Similar laws have been struck down by courts in six other states, including Michigan and Illinois.

The Supreme Court challenge was led by the Entertainment Merchants Association, a group representing DVD and video game retailers, distributors and suppliers, along with other video game industry groups.

According to the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the U.S. computer and video game industry, 72 per cent of American households play computer and video games and consumers spent $25.1 billion on video games, hardware and accessories in 2010.

The State of California, in defence of its law, told the court that it is in the interest of the government to help parents protect the well-being of their children at times when the parents aren't present.

It told the court that the interactive nature of video games, which allows a player to act out violence rather than just watching it, makes the violence "especially harmful to minors."

The state also argued that the rights of minors should not be the same as those of adults and the law should be flexible in that regard.

The court acknowledged that the state has a legitimate right to protect children from harm.

"But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," it said in an opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Video games qualify for protection under the First Amendment just like books, plays and movies, the ruling said, and California failed to meet the standard for overriding that protection by showing it was justified by a “compelling government interest” and narrowly designed to target that interest.

The video game industry’s voluntary rating system already largely meets the needs of parents who wish to restrict their children from buying violent video games, the court said.

It also noted that not all parents want to stop their children from buying such games.

The court said the U.S. has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence.

"California’s claim that 'interactive' video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive," the ruling added.

Two of the judges dissented.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that freedom of speech, "as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardians."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that in his opinion, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents choose not to let their children buy violent video games, "which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of harm to those children."

The Entertainment Merchants Association said it welcomed the ruling.

"There now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music, and other expressive entertainment," said Bo Anderson, president and CEO of the association, in a statement Monday.

But he acknowledged that the ruling "does not obviate the concern that parents may have about the appropriateness of some video games for their children."

He added that retailers understand their responsibility to help parents make informed decisions about games for their children and to ensure that children don't purchase mature-rated games without their parents’ permission.

He noted that June designated each month for an industry campaign to promote awareness and enforcement of video game ratings.

Despite the two dissenting views among the Supreme Court justices, the Entertainment Software Association called the ruling a "historic and complete win for the First Amendment and creative freedom of artists and stories everywhere."

Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the association, said in a statement that the ruling affirms that "parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children.”

The video game industry had alleged during the court proceedings that California was asking for an exception to the First Amendment that could be extended to affect books and movies, and that there is no scientific evidence that children are affected more by violence in video games than other media.

With files from Andrew Davidson