Legislatures in the United States continuously attempt to restrict the flow of new forms of entertainment that their constituents believe to be harmful to society. Yet, from the lower courts to supreme courts, contested legislation is overturned. The First Amendment’s assertion of the freedom of speech is afforded the highest standard of judicial review and very few exceptions are allowed. These exceptions to free speech are obscenity, incitement, fighting words, slander and libel. However, while adults enjoy the full extent of the priviledges in the Bill of Rights, minors are viewed as needing special consideration in certain situations. In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) the Court upheld a statute proscribing vendors from selling adult acceptable pornography to minors. While such material is legal and not obscene for adults, the Court reasoned that it would be obscene from a child’s viewpoint, Id., at 638. The statute upheld in Ginsberg banned selling to minors any sexual material that: “(i) predominately appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors, and (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and …show more content…
EMA was unequivocal in affirming that any legislative attempt to restrict minor’s access to video games must be able to withstand review under strict scrutiny. In order to pass muster, the government must prove that they have a compelling interest in the matter, and legislation must be narrowly drawn to serve that interest. In Brown, Justice Scalia determined that scientific studies showing a correlation between violent video games and violence in minors would not suffice to meet this standard. Thus establishing that the government needs causational evidence before imposing restrictions on minor’s ability to access protected speech. However, such demanding standards of evidence are not always required by the