Ruling on Violent Video Games: Score One for First Amendment (example paragraph) In 2005, California state legislature passed AB 1179 sponsored by then California state senator Leland Yee, which banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under age 18 and required clear labelling beyond the existing ESRB Rating System. The supreme court refuse to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying government do not have the power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed despite complaints about graphic violent. Written for the majority, justice Antonin scalia said the country has no tradition of restricting depictions of violence for children, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular childrens fairy tales like Cinderella. He said Californias law did not meet high legal bar to infringe on the first Amendment. Micheal D. Gallagher, president and chief executive of the entertainment Software Association, which represents the U.S computer and video game industry, also said the decision means that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children. (Thesis) (personal argument with factual evidence) Even though the court struck down the California law of banned selling "violent" video games to children and al Susan Bronmiller says this in Lets Put Pornography Back in the closet. The distinctive between permission to publish and permission to display publicity is an essential one on one which I think consonant with First Amendment principles. Justice Burgers words which I quoted above support this without question. We are not saying smash the process or Ban the bad ones, but simply get the stuff out of our sight. Let thelegistlature standards what can be displayed and what cannot the courts, after all, will be the final arbiters. (example paragraph) Similar thing happen in 1969 where by the Appellant, who operated a luncheonette and sold magazines on long island in New York was convicted of selling girlie magazine to a sixteen-year-old boy. The boys mother sends him to the luncheonette to buy the material so that Ginsberg would be prosecuted under New Yorks law prohibiting the sale of obscene material to persons under seventeen years of age. The New York court Appeals tuned back Gnsbergs challenge to the state authority to define obscenity based on its appeal to minors. (personal interpretation of example with factual evidence) (Conclusion)

Ruling on Violent Video Games: Score One for First Amendment
(example paragraph) In 2005, California state legislature passed AB 1179 sponsored by then California state senator Leland Yee, which banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under age 18 and required clear labelling beyond the existing ESRB Rating System.
The supreme court refuse to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying government do not have the power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed despite complaints about graphic violent.

Written for the majority, justice Antonin scalia said the country has no tradition of restricting depictions of violence for children, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular childrens fairy tales like Cinderella. He said Californias law did not meet high legal bar to infringe on the first Amendment.

Micheal D. Gallagher, president and chief executive of the entertainment Software Association, which represents the U.S computer and video game industry, also said the decision means that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children. (Thesis)

(personal argument with factual evidence) Even though the court struck down the California law of banned selling "violent" video games to children and al


Susan Bronmiller says this in Lets Put Pornography Back in the closet. The distinctive between permission to publish and permission to display publicity is an essential one on one which I think consonant with First Amendment principles. Justice Burgers words which I quoted above support this without question. We are not saying smash the process or Ban the bad ones, but simply get the stuff out of our sight. Let thelegistlature standards what can be displayed and what cannot the courts, after all, will be the final arbiters.

(example paragraph) Similar thing happen in 1969 where by the Appellant, who operated a luncheonette and sold magazines on long island in New York was convicted of selling girlie magazine to a sixteen-year-old boy. The boys mother sends him to the luncheonette to buy the material so that Ginsberg would be prosecuted under New Yorks law prohibiting the sale of obscene material to persons under seventeen years of age. The New York court Appeals tuned back Gnsbergs challenge to the state authority to define obscenity based on its appeal to minors.

(personal interpretation of example with factual evidence)

(Conclusion)