Last updated: May 6, 2010 - 7:57am
[Commentary] There are countless parents who will not allow their children to play violent video games, in which players are able to kill, maim, dismember or sexually assault human images in depraved ways. The video game industry rates them, and some stores use that rating to decide whether to sell a particular game to a minor. But California went too far in 2005 when it made it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. Retailers challenged the law, and a federal appeals court rightly ruled that it violates the First Amendment. Last week, the Supreme Court said that it would review that decision. We hope it agrees that the law is unconstitutional. California lawmakers may have been right when they decided that video games in which players kill and maim are not the most socially beneficial form of expression. The Constitution, however, does not require speech to be ideal for it to be protected.
Links to Sources
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related
- Supreme Court questions ban on sale of violent video games
- Good intentions, bad law
- Supreme Court to hear case on violent video games
- The high court’s misguided decision on violent video games
- Ruling on violent video games: Score one for 1st Amendment
- California law restricting video game sales on shaky ground
- Protecting kids from violent video games parents' responsibility
- Judging video games
- Looking At Violent Video Games Now, Seeing Indecency In The Future
- California's video game law ruled unconstitutional
- California appeals video game law to Supreme Court
- What next after Supreme Court ruling on violent video games?
- Supreme Court lifts limits on sale of violent video games to minors
- Dueling Commentary on California Video Game Law
- Videogames as Free-Speech Issue
Topics
Location
Ratings
Login to rate this headline.

