First Amendment and Video Games
2 Comments Published by clay September 6th, 2007 in State and Local Politics. 
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday appealed a federal court ruling that permanently struck down the state’s ban on selling explicitly violent video games to children, attempting to save a 2005 prohibition that has never been enforced.
The Republican governor signed the high-profile law two years ago blocking anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing or renting certain games that depict acts such as the “needless mutilation of the victim’s body.”
But U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte temporarily blocked the state from imposing its ban on First Amendment grounds in December 2005, days before it was scheduled to take effect, and made his ruling permanent last month.
A Federal Trade Commission undercover survey last year found that 42 percent of children under 17 were able to purchase an M-rated game without a parent or guardian, while 39 percent were able to purchase an R-rated movie ticket. The video game rate has dropped in half since 2000, according to the FTC.
I am careful when it comes to what games my son plays. It is difficult sometimes when other parents allow their kids to play video games like this. Two years ago, my son’s friend gave him the game Grand Theft Auto. My son played it for a little while and liked it. We took it from him, but bought him another more acceptable game in its place.
My preference is the state does not play the parental role in this case. Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger’s legislation does not stop minors from buying or renting games. It puts the responsibility with the parents to decide if they want to buy or rent the game for their children. Therefore, it sounds like a compromised bill, which seems ok. Schwarzenegger’s appeal will probably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, leading to an interesting discussion over First Amendment protections and minors.
Answering the first question, no I do not think that the state has the power to prohibit minors from getting their hands on violent video games. I think its actually the opposite, since many minors work in the places that sell these games. Therefore really its the minors who have absolute control over who they allow themselves to sell the games to.
Being that that’s the case I think that it is the parents’ responsibility to enforce their own rules in the house over video games. And to keep things civil in the house I think it’s a good idea to make up for the game their taking away from their child.
Honestly I really don’t think that the state has the power for such a big crisis as this. I don’t think that prohibiting “minors” from consuming of a rated M video game without an adult will actually work. If it does anything it will make the situation worse. Because if a teenager or a child wants something really bad, then they will work hard to get what they want. All this will do is make minors find different ways of getting what they want since their parents must be with them to purchase the games. What is the point in doing this? I mean really? Its just going to make people underage want the games even more.
I believe that it is the parents job to do many things. I wouldn’t and I wont start blaming the government for not taking control of things that “parents” should be taking care of. No matter how much the government wants minors to stop playing these games it doesn’t mean that mommy and daddy are going to abide. They wont stop buying them. Then if mommy and daddy does stop, doesn’t mean the Childs friends parents are. Like I said before if children/ teenagers, anyone want something in life they will work hard to get it.