Do violent video game laws violate the First Amendment, or protect children?
CALIFORNIA -- Minors will still be allowed to buy violent video games, after one state’s Supreme Court struck down an attempt to ban children from purchasing them.
Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s the parent’s job to screen the appropriateness of games in a case filed in California, according to CNN.
The 7 – 2 ruling has sparked a debate on the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." CNN reports Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “as a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously over-inclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime.” Where Justice Stephen Breyer states, “the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games…”
Michigan has experienced the same controversy in the past. In 2005, Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a law that would have barred retailers from selling or renting violent video games to minors. However, in 2006, a federal judge ruled that law was unconstitutional. According to a USA Today report, Detroit’s U.S. District Judge George Steeh at the time of the ruling stated, "video games contain creative, expressive free speech, inseparable from their interactive functional elements, and are therefore protected by the First Amendment.”
Where do you stand on this topic? Do violent video game laws violate the First Amendment, or protect children? Leave us your comments.
