Abstract
In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, should kids be allowed to play violent video games without no supervision. The US government wants to ban certain types of violent video games without no supervision. The Supreme Court of the United States refuses to a “2005 California law banning the sales for certain types of video games without no supervision.” US government have control on what games they can ban for kids without no supervision. First part of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association will be Summary of the Court Case then The Supreme Court’s Decision last part will be Assessment of the Supreme Court’s Decision. The Supreme Court of the United States should allow kids to play the certain types of violent video games without no supervision.
…show more content…
government should have rights to ban some but not all violent video games to kids without parental supervision. The Supreme Court of the United States denied the 2005 California law banning the sales of some video games that may feature some violence to kids for use without parent’s supervision. The ruling was a “victory” for the video games industry, even though the issue might need to be “re-examined” in the future”, especially regarding the player's communication with the virtual world such as one player shooting games. That conflict with the First Amendment protection of people’s individual rights.” I agree with the Supreme Court Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) banning the 2005 California law. Video games is type of art form just like the movies should the government have an option if parents are allowing their children to play certain violent video games, especially if the parents are the ones who buy those violent video games and let their children play