Facts: In 2005, California’s state legislature passed a law that restricted the distribution of violent video games to minors. Under the law, any person that gave out, rented, or sold a violent video game to a minor in California that did not display the age of “18” on it would receive a fine of up to $1,000. In this case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia states that the California law is violating the First Amendment due to the fact that the legislation produced a new classification of speech that they would only ban from children. On the opposing side, Justice Stephen Breyer concluded that the law that was set forth by the state of California is clear on the restriction that is set upon minors when purchasing video games.
Issue:
With technology constantly evolving at a fast pace, is there a need for new regulations which deal with the problems that occur when technology is in use, or would these regulations be too hard to enforce?
…show more content…
Unlike adults, the First Amendment applies differently to children and the state is doing this in an effort to protect them. The statute that California has brought to the Court’s attention is clear and provides a fair warning about what is allowed and what is not. The statute would prevent a minor from buying a violent video game without his or her parents present, but it does not keep anyone from playing, obtaining, or an adult from buying a game and then giving it to the minor. Interactive video games that contain violence can negatively affect children by praising them when they cause harm to something or someone. Justice Stephen Breyer believes that there is plenty of evidence in studies that show these violent video games do more harm than good to children. In conclusion, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that sometimes the government must help parents regulate what their youth are exposed to and that the California law is