Bill of rights
Violent video games were banned from being sold to the minors in the section code of California Law. This legislation was created to protect the minors from any harm and moral wrongs that can result through playing violent video games. Regulations were imposed to reduce harm to self and to others. Video games are presently regulated in North America through a self-governing organization. However, the Supreme Court recently voted the Bill of Rights to allow minors to purchase video games, basing on the freedoms established in the first amendment. Thus, the Bill of Rights now allows the minors to purchase violent video games arguing that children need to learn in making their own choices.
Many opponents argue that children need to learn in making their own choices. Thus, the law was regulated to allow freedom of speech to everyone. Although, parents, teachers and governments sometimes make choices for children, children are supposed to be given freedom to make their own decisions. Rousse (2011) argues that parents are capable of controlling their children on the kind of speech they listen to or see. He further clarified that there is long tradition behind the belief and the publishers of video games that they have free right to advice or speak to their children without being restricted. He pointed out that the law allows parents to purchase video games to the children in case they choose to do so.
Breyer comments that it does not make any sense even if a magazine showing an image of a naked woman is sold to a boy of 13 years old (Horowitz 288). He raises many questions trying to know in case the First Amendment would permit children to be protected by the government through restricting violent video in case the naked woman is tortured and killed. Breyer does not see any meaning as to why these video games should not be purchased by children because this is one way through, which children learn. Moreover, when children are exposed to various situations and left to make their own choices, it is easier for them to learn and differentiate good things from bad ones.
The Supreme Court reaffirms that the free speech protection should be applied to every bit as well as to the video games industry because they offer different forms of expressing information. The court declared that the restrictions of violent video games to minors seem unconstitutional. Therefore, they argue that parents have the rights to make choice on the appropriate things for their children but not the governmental bureaucrats. This ruling was welcomed by the entertainment industry that represents the United States computer video games (Horowitz 279). Some people argue that the constitution restricts the action of the government even where children’s protection is an object.
Rousse argues that violence video games have no effect to children. This is because there are some books often viewed suitable for high school children and yet these books even have violent material than the video games. For instance, a book such as Grimm’s fairly tales is among the books that have violent material because Grim wanted to poison Snow White (Rousse (2011). This book shows a sadly example of envy and jealous as the Snow White fell dead on the floor. Thus, opponents argue that there is no need of restricting the law on violent video because they are the same with those books students are allowed to use in schools.
Rousse (2011) argues that the California law imposes a modest restriction on expression. It does not restrict anyone from purchasing the video games provided the parents are willing to help. The issue of video games in this case has no crucial part of any explanation of ideas. However, it provides a step of social value in which the government must be allowed to control their distribution to minors based upon the content devoid of the First Amendment. Rousse and Horowitz concluded that the original view of the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment does not include the right of speaking to minors without informing their parents.
Horowitz, I.L. “Freedom to Read Vs. Obligation to Protect.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing.
42.3 (2011): 271-288. Print.
Rousse, Thomas, Electronic Games & the First Amendment (June 7, 2011). Northwestern
Interdisciplinary Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2011.