A California law restricting the sale of violent video games to children is headed to the Supreme Court this week for the final decision. Video game makers think the ban is going too far; the parents of these children should be able to judge is they want their children playing these games, not the Supreme Court. The state, however, believes it has a "legal obligation" to protect these children when the industry can't. The issue with the law is whether it is constitutinal or not, dealing with the right to free speech. Under this law, it is illegal for any person under the age of 18 to buy a video game that is "excessively violent" by the state of California.
I don't neccessarily think that this is a good idea, but I think it's a step in the right direction. While I don't believe that it is the state's, or the Supreme Court's, decision as to what video games children play, I believe that there should be some type of regulation on violent video games. However, I think the system would work fine if parents were in charge of the video games their children play. They can decide whether or not to allow it, not the state. It is a matter of personal opinion, not a legal issue. The constitution gives us all freedom of speech and expression. This law would take away from that freedom.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/26/scotus.violent.video.games/index.html
I agree that if the Supreme Court passes this law, it's a hinderance to people's freedom of speech. Plus, the ESRB already has a rating system that prevents minors from buying the really-explict games, so ultimately it's the decision of the parents and children and not the system's fault.
ReplyDelete