When I reached Mary Lou Dickerson on the phone this afternoon, I halfway expected the Washington state representative to be overjoyed at the news that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided to review a lower court's ruling that struck down California's prohibition on the sale of violent video games to minors.

Dickerson championed a similar law in Washington state that was ruled unconstitutional six years ago. And a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court in the California case could revive the possibility of such a law here. But she made it clear that she has moved on at this point, not expressing much interest when I asked if she would considering raising the issue again in our state.

"It took some time, but when I last checked the industry was doing fairly well in complying with its own rating system," she said, referring to ESRB ratings. That can vary from year to year, she added, but her other aim was to increase awareness of the issue among parents. On that point, she said, "I think that parents are much more aware now."

Oddly enough, Dickerson's longtime cause has been taken up in the meantime by none other than California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a.k.a. The Terminator.

“We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," Schwarzenegger said in a statement today. "I am pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up this issue, and I look forward to a decision upholding this important law that gives parents more tools to protect their children, including the opportunity to determine what video games are appropriate.”

In its own statement, the Entertainment Software Association countered by citing the importance of First Amendment protections for video games. "Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional. Research shows that the public agrees, video games should be provided the same protections as books, movies and music."

These are the specific issues to be considered by the Supreme Court (PDF):

1. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?

2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

The L.A. Times reports that the court's decision to consider the case "suggests some justices believe that the California law could be upheld as narrowly targeted because it focuses on minors and applies to videos that 'appeal to a deviant and morbid interest' in violence, as the state has argued."