By Douglas V. Gibbs
California, along with six other states, has passed state legislation that would forbid the sale of violent or sexually explicit video games to minors. Seems reasonable, since rated "R" movies, of which are rated such because of the violent and sexual content, are also forbidden to be sold to minors.
The games, I agree, are disgustingly unreasonable, and out-of-control violent. The violence and sexual situations in these games that target kids is uncalled for, in my opinion. But before we hammer the companies for making the games, or the government for not protecting kids from the games, why aren't we asking where in the hell the parents are when these kids get their hands on such games?
The argument against the state laws forbidding the sale of these games to minors bases its argument on free speech. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the case last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights. In fact, each time that states have passed such laws, federal courts have struck down the laws, citing concerns about free speech and a lack of conclusive evidence that violent games are harmful to minors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter, or at least not until now. The high court has now stated it will hear California's appeal and consider reviving the state laws, or keep the laws overturned.
This decision by the SCOTUS comes less than a week after the court struck down a federal law on free-speech grounds that made it a crime to sell videos of illegal acts of animal cruelty - which is insane, in my humble opinion. If the acts of animal cruelty are illegal (key word being "illegal"), then videos of those "illegal" acts should be illegal to sell or purchase. The court disagrees, stating the law banning the sell of animal cruelty videos is unconstitutional due to free speech concerns, and that the law was so broad that it could reach beyond the torture of animals and apply to out-of-season hunting.
When it comes to violent video games, Governor Schwarzenegger says we have a responsibility to our kids to protect them from ultra-violent games. Is that the government's responsibility?Doesn't that responsibility rest squarely on the shoulders of the parents? Don't get me wrong. If the government can assist by making those games less available from a legal standpoint, just like it does with violent movies, it will help parents. But the ultimate ban must be by parents that are willing to be pro-active in their kid's lives, and should not be a responsibility of government because parents suddenly wish to abdicate their roles for whatever irresponsible reason.
From a legal standpoint, however, we have to look at this case from a Constitutional viewpoint. My feelings regarding the affect these games have on children, or whether or not the parents must be involved in their children's lives, are not considering factors.
California's ban on selling violent video games to minors was signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2005. If the law had been allowed to stand, it would have imposed a civil fine on retailers who sell or rent to minors video games that were labeled as violent. Before the law could go into effect, the Entertainment Software Association and the Video Software Dealers Association took the law to court and a federal judge blocked the law from being enforced. After that, last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban was unconstitutional.
Remember, the federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, represents the federal government. The law is a state law. Therefore, the highest the case should have gotten is the State Supreme Court. Had the state court considered the law unconstitutional based on the state constitution, giving such an opinion based on the first article of the state constitution, which is quite clear on the state's laws regarding freedom of speech, then the Governor and the state legislature would have been compelled to either change the law, or repeal it, based on the courts opinion of the constitutionality of the law.
No appeal could go further because the federal government does not have the authority to see this case, nor do they have the authority to overturn a state law unless that law directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution. Since the First Amendment applies to the federal government, stating specifically that "Congress shall make no law," the federal courts cannot constitutionally see this case. The case would only be one that could be seen by the SCOTUS if this was regarding a federal law that may be in violation of the First Amendment since the First Amendment specifically applies to the federal government and not to the states.
Hence the reason states also have their own constitutions.
Let me repeat, in case everyone is not clear on this. The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government, and the law being questioned is not a federal law, therefore the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to see this case. The case is in regards to a state law, and the freedom of speech provision in question is the one that is listed in the California state constitution, therefore, the highest court to see this case should be the California State Supreme Court. The federal government is not supposed to overturn a state law unless that state law directly violates the U.S. Constitution. Since the First Amendment only applies to federal laws, and not state laws, the federal courts have no jurisdiction, and the state law does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The state is allowed to make its own laws on this issue, and the federal government has no jurisdiction to say that the state can't.
If the U.S. Supreme Court sees this case as planned, and also strikes down the state law, it will be a gross intrusion on state's rights by the federal government, and yet another example of how our federal government has become an unconstitutional entity. State sovereignty, at that point, would be grossly compromised, and the Supreme Court, as was the 9th Circuit Court, would be acting in an unconstitutional manner.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Supreme Court to hear case on violent video games - L.A. Times
California Constitution - Declaration of Rights
Court to rule on violent video games - SCOTUS Blog
Senators, Industry Pros Spar Over 'Barbaric' Games In Heated Hearing: Courts have been turning down state attempts to ban sale of violent games to minors - MTV
Why California's case against violent video games is a long shot - The Christian Science Monitor
No comments:
Post a Comment