Saturday, October 26, 2019

Government Regulation of Video Game Violence is Unconstitutional and Un

â€Å"Breaking news tonight at 11, three students dead, several wounded after manic depressed teen lashes out with a handgun†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Americans serve witness in recent decades to this scary yet familiar occurrence. The cause of this familiar scene is minors suffering from social disorders and aggression. The major focus of blame is the entertainment industry including television, movies, books, and recently video games. The state of California decided to address the concern of video game violence by passing a law banning minors from purchasing games that are considered â€Å"violent†. However, the law is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The law is simple: any game that humanoid characters are maimed, killed, or tortured is considered violent. Labels that clearly state 18 must be placed on all games falling under this definition. The law requires that any individual purchasing a game in this category must provide proof of age. Additionally, retailers must obtain proof of age before selling the game or face fines. The law’s purpose is to protect minors from games that contain violence. Unfortunately, the California law ignores the Constitution. The First Amendment covers minors’ rights to obtain video games, because the games enjoy the same protections granted to other forms of protected speech. Carmen Hoyme (2004), notes in the First Amendment Law Review that since video games share properties that other protected media forms have, the same protections are extended to video games and restrictions affecting minors' access are allowable due to incitement (pp. 318-385). Holning Lau (2007), writing in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, explains that minors have the right to obtain expressions protected by the First A... ...Freedom of expression and interactive media: video games and the first amendment. University of North Carolina School of Law First Amendment Law Review, 2(377), 377-402. Retrieved September 22, 2014 Lau, H. (2007). Pluralism: a principle for children’s rights. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42(317), 317-372. Retrieved September 22, 2014 O'Holleran, J. (2010). Student note: blood code: the history and future of video game censorship. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 8, 571-612. Retrieved September 22, 2014 Wood, R. (2009). Violent video games: more ink spilled than blood - an analysis of the 9th circuit decision in video software dealers association v. schwarzenegger. Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law, 10, 103-121. Retrieved September 22, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.