Game Over for Lazy Parents

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. According to the majority decision, which was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, banning the sale of violent video games to children is illegal because it violates First Amendment rights. According to the majority, "The most basic principle--that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content--is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test". In other words, limitations on freedom of speech are few and far between, and violence in video games is not one of those limitations. By putting this ban into effect, the state of California was essentially violating its citizens freedom of speech, which is why the High Court struck it down.

I agree with everything that the majority opinion says. However, I take great issue with the hypocrisy found in the two dissenting opinions, particularly the statement provided by Justice Clarence Thomas. According to Thomas, the ban was legitimate because the Founding Fathers "believed parents to have complete authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the development of those children" and that the First Amendment did not apply to this particular case because it "does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians". His first point is right, yet it contradicts the position he sided with. If parents should be the ones 'direct[ing] the development' of their children, then why is the state of California taking up that role? For example, what if the parents believe that violent video games are OK, and they give their kids money to purchase one of those games? Even if other people believe that kids should not be playing violent games, those parents have, in reality, fulfilled their obligation to oversee the development of their children. Yeah, other parents may decide differently, but that is what this issue boils down to: The personal decisions of the parents. California was attempting to carry out the personal, parental responsibilities that Justice Thomas cites, and that is where this law is unconstitutional, as cited by the majority of the court. It is ok for parents to deem something unsuitable for children, but not the government.

Justice Stephen Breyer, the other judge to dissent, gave an equally baffling and frustrating statement to support his position. According to Breyer, the government can and should play a limited role in protecting and making decisions for children. "The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games" he said. Well, Justice Breyer, this law was not helping parents come to a decision, it was making decisions for them. Breyer also used the Ginsberg vs. New York Supreme Court Case from 1968 to support his position. In that case, the court ruled that even if material is not obscene, it can still be considered harmful to children and therefore regulated. Breyer believes that violent video games fall into that category of "not obscene but harmful", and that California, therefore, did not violate Constitutional rights. I disagree. Although there are many studies that claim to show that violent games have an effect on child development, there are just as many studies that say otherwise. There are also other studies which claim to show that things as seemingly tame as cartoons have negative developmental effects on children. So does that mean that we should ban kids from watching Looney Tunes as well? It's a slippery slope that we shouldn't head down.

In the end, this case was not about censorship vs. free speech, obscenity vs. decency, or education vs. ignorance. It was about parental responsibility vs. parental laziness. If there are parents out there who are offended by violent games, and who don't want their kids playing them, here's a novel idea: Take matters into your own hands! Stop letting little Johnny go into GameStop all by himself. Start learning about the parental control systems that are built into some video game consoles. Do some research about a game before you purchase it for your kid, that way you won't let out a shriek of horror when you see your 8 year old beating a hooker with a baseball bat. There is no "smoking gun" that proves violent games are somehow cultivating a "Mad Max" society for future generations, so until there is (and I highly doubt there ever will be) the purchasing of these games should be considered a private, parental decision. Parents need to do their job, and they cannot keep dumping their responsibilities onto society and the government. Raising a child is not something that can be regulated by a legislative body, nor should it be in a democratic society.