The Right to Free Expression

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but to address the point: How do you enact and enforce such a ban?

On the internet, it is widely known in free countries that censoring software is deeply flawed in its basic functioning (not by lack of quality coding, but because no form of censorship truly blocks only what it intends, and someone with a personal grudge can fairly easily skew the censors' lists; also it is often difficult to be removed from such lists once on them, just as we have seen with government no-fly lists and similar groupings and files) and can be disabled or defeated relatively easily.

Now, you can, as with alcohol, enforce point of sale bans. All games are voluntarily rated by industry members and watchdogs. But I find this an interesting point: once past the point of sale, who is to prevent the transfer and otherwise enforce the law? It's teenage drinking all over again, as someone says "Buy me that game and I'll give you five bucks" and someone else says "Okay, here ya go."

Misuse of alcohol is greatly contributory to teenage deaths and hospitalization, as well as personal disarray; teens are more likely to go wild on it and mistreat the substance, having not grown up respecting it.

Give a teenager a violent video game, and they are unlikely to grab a gun and shoot up their classroom... unless they were already disturbed and likely to do so. Give a small child a violent video game, and you have committed a wrong -- but the small child probably would not, could not, have purchased that game on their own anyway, law or no law! How would they get to the vendor, and where did they get the money for it? Someone has to directly enable that.

Is "violence" an unprotected form of speech? Can you define it as being "obscene", a term understood to refer to gross and blatant displays of human sexuality which are beyond the bounds of communication between persons?

Next you'll argue to lock up the comic books, because superheroes hit people, and social degenerates read them!

At school, we had trainings by our county's anti-gang task force. In it, we learned:

1) several of the shooters in school gun incidents deliberately trained their aim and killing skills using ultra-violent games.

2) Several gangs have published games in California with the express intent of recruiting kids into the gang culture. The scenarios for these games are scripts for gang conduct, including beatings and rape. Funding for companies that write, program and release these games have been traced back to prominent gang members. (There is also major crossover with the music industry. Being alerted to some common gang signs has made it nearly impossible for me to watch music awards or music videos without identifying many artists as either Crips or Bloods.)

3) There is a correlation between youth who buy and play games with an anti-law bent and those who later commit violent crime.

The officers were very firm and vocal in advocating that youth not have these games available to them.

They state that if such games were unavailable, the shooters would not have been able to kill as many people as they had, for lack of practice.

Gangs would not have as many willing recruits.

The cops used the phrase "violence porn" throughout the presentation.

After this presentation, I think I can see why lawmakers were moved to do something. It seems like something simple to implement, that if you believe cops, will make a positive change. "Violence Porn" sounds like something to protect children from, indeed.

I, however, do not think that correlation means causation.

I think that a ratings system like that used in the movies, which VOLUNTARILY restricts entries to R or NC-17 movies without an adult, without being criminal is better than criminalizing the creation and sale of games. The movie theaters check ID, and choose whether or not to admit the youth.

In college, our town had two comics shops: a news stand called Young's with soda pop and candy, and a gamer/comic shop. The news stand was run by a Christian who would not sell comics to youth under 18 if the comic was not approved by the comic's code, unless the parent was present, or provided written permission to be on file with him for the child to have certain titles.

This meant that some series, like the X-Men, could be hard for youth to buy if there was a cliffhanger in which Magneto had the X-Men captured and helpless, for the "approved" box cannot be on the cover of a magazine in which the bad guy is "winning." Young realized he might lose sales, but still made it his policy. But parents LOVED his store, because every one knew the rules, and there were established ways children could access the materials at his store. Checks and balances.

And, if the kids couldn't be bothered to get Mom's approval, there was always the gamer/comic store around the corner, if they dared brave the college crowd.

I hope the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is successful in its efforts to help, because I think the way comics shops operate currently works fairly well.

As a mom, I keep track of what games my kids play. "City of Heroes" is okay, "City of Villains" must wait.

Funny. If I was going to complain about someone chipping away at the constitution, I'd be more worried about Breyer trying to claim that burning a Koran is unconstitutional.

"You know what kind of things actually contribute to juvenile delinquency? Hunger. Spousal battery. Sexual abuse. Homelessness. Illiteracy. Addiction. Bullying. Racism."

I know this will shock you, but believe it or not, human beings actually do have free will, and the ability to choose their actions. Do these factors help? Absolutely not. But you demean the humanity of those you seek to protect and defend by claiming that they are products of circumstance who have no control over their actions.