Two new editorials appearing online today back California in that state’s Supreme Court fight over a law that would make it illegal for minors to purchase mature-rated violent games.
Writing for the Iowa-based Quad-City Times, columnist L. Brent Bozell argues that requiring a parent to buy such games for their offspring is “hardly shredding the Constitution.” He also infers that the videogame industry is hiding behind the First Amendment in order to stop politicians from “tampering with their sales to minors.”
For the game industry, Bozell writes, “there must be no hurdle for children to go around their parents and grab what Justice Samuel Alito called ‘the most violent, sadistic, graphic video game that can be developed.’”
Bozell finishes by asking what the Supreme Court Justices might think about the subject a game entitled “Supreme Court Massacre” existed.
Meanwhile, an unattributed editorial on Tampa Bay Online states that the kind of violent games at the center of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA are “disgusting and of no societal value.” The author feels that “states should be able to facilitate parental control over their children's access to violent video games that could hurt them.”
The TBO piece calls the California law constitutional and a “common sense regulation,” that “bans no speech, affects no adults, delineates its reach and reinforces parents' authority.”