To the chagrin of many concerned parents in California, a proposed ban that prevents graphic video games from being sold or rented to minors was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a ruling early on Monday. The court rejected the move for a state regulation on violent video game distribution to children, arguing that protection from graphic content may “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
With many American households now owning at least one video game system, how do you feel as parents about this new court overturn on the proposed ban of violent video games? Do you agree with the court’s decision that it’s unconstitutional and parents should be responsible for what their children are exposed to, or would you rather have a state law that protects minors from exposure to the graphic nature of video games?
In a 7-2 vote, the court ruling overturned a proposed law that banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, saying it violates children’s first amendment rights. Justice Antonin Scalia stated that exposure to violent video games is hardly different from reading classic fairy tale stories like Snow White or Cinderella to children.
“Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore,” Scalia said.
Under the proposed law, retailers across the state would be prohibited from selling or renting games labeled “violent” to minors and could face up to $1,000 if caught.
So as parents, do you agree or disagree with the court’s ruling that a would-be state ban is unconstitutional and parents are the ones solely responsible to monitor what games their children play, or would you rather have the protection of a state law that prohibits graphic content being sold to minors?
Tell us what you think below!
[Source: CBS LA]