By a 7-2 vote on Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a California law forbidding the sale of “violent” video games to minors because the law violated free-speech rights.
The law defines “violent” as a video game in which a player is given the choice of “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Retailers that sold or rented violent video games to minors could be fined $1,000.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority, says, “As a means of assisting concerned parents (the law) is seriously over inclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents…think violent video games are a harmless pastime.”
While game developers, store owners, and minors rejoice that First Amendment rights were upheld, some parents and activist groups are not so thrilled.
“Only you the parent can decide what sort of content you will allow your children and teenagers to view and partake in, to purchase and play.” Says Hollie Reina, a mother, “It probably goes without saying that, although we would like to, we can’t shield them from everything.”
Despite the law being struck down, one thing is for sure: the issue is far from over.
What things should and should not be censored/regulated if anything at all? Who should be held accountable for the kind of media a minor consumes?
Tell us what you think!
Like what you’ve read? Click here to subscribe to this blog!
Tags: California Law, first amendment, supreme court case, video games, violent video games
I think that it should be regulated. Movies are regulated, why can’t violent video games be? I didn’t realize this, but can kids buy games like Grand Theft Auto? That game has all of the above: killing, maiming, dismembering and sexually assaulting an image of a human being. Interesting!
Hmm…if the law would have violated the free speech rights of children who are allowed by their parents to play violent games, can that mean the MPAA movie ratings violate the free speech rights of children whose parents let them see R-rated movies? Just something to think about.
Let me clear this up. A minor is anybody below the age of 18, and in all states, sales of movies, books, and video games that contain violent or disturbing images and ideas is legal to any minor who is capable of purchasing these things. That being said the video game industry, just like the movie industry, has a rating system that is regulated. The video game industry has the ESRB, which rate games M for mature if the game is violent, just like an R ratings for movies. Similar to how movie theaters DO NOT allow minors into R rated movies, distributors like GameStop also card minors who purchase M rated games, as is their right as a individual business. Also, all gaming systems out now, the Xbox 360, the PS3 and the Wii, all have parental control locks on them so a child can not play violent, M rated games without a passcode.
But lets get real people, if a minor wants something we don’t want them to have, they are going to get it regardless. Porn, violence, and anything else that’s “bad” is available to minors in all facets of our society, and much of it is unregulated, so don’t think for a second that video games are some “holy grail” source of violence to youth.
I think you should let minors play whatever they want to play. If their parents raised them right, they’ll make the right decision.
Right on Dude!
Just like anything in life…there are rules, regulations and limits.
I think it’s got to be somewhere in the middle. I don’t think children should be allowed to buy Grand Theft Auto, but of course their parents could choose to do it for them. However, once someone hits their teen years it seems that they should be allowed to buy more mature games and it is then the parents job to CONTINUE deciding what’s things they will allow their kids to be exposed to.