Back in 2005 the legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 1179, legislation by ultra-liberal Democrat Leland Yee. This terrible piece of “nanny-statist” legislation presumed to once again assert state government in the role of parenting our children, in this case regulating the sale of violent video games to people under 18. Completely ignoring the fact that there is an existing rating system for video games that works well, the legislature and, ironically, Governor Schwarzenegger, supported this bad bill.
Fortunately, this particular advance of big government was thwarted by numerous California courts, included a unanimous rejection by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is significant to note that this brings to an even dozen the number of similar laws around the country that have been declared unconstitutional. In the case of AB 1179, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Never before have U.S.courts used expressions of violence as the basis for a restriction on our Constitutional rights to free speech. You may not like certain video games, but do you really want the government to tell your kids they can’t watch a movie that displays the heroism at the Iwo Jima or on Omaha Beach because too many people got killed or that the depictions of the savagery were too real?
Supporters of the law don’t want you to think about that, but we need to because if these restrictions can be imposed on video games, you can be sure that they will be imposed on other forms of entertainment.
Just this week, lawyers for the state filed their legal arguments with the high court. According to a story filed by Josh Richman of the Bay Area News Group, “…the state’s brief argues the law promotes parental authority to restrict unsupervised minors’ access to a narrow category of material in order to protect their physical and psychological well-being — a vital state interest…”
You should take a moment to pause, and digest what it means to our freedom from government intervention into our personal lives if this line of logic is taken as valid by the court. It would be an invitation for a virtual flood of additional “nanny state” bills in Sacramento and can the other State Capitols where liberals dominate the process. It should be parents and guardians that hold primary responsibility for the well being of our children, not the government.
The law is an unwarranted government intrusion into our personal lives that everyone, but especially conservatives, should reject. Parents should be the ones to make decisions about what games their kids should play, not the government. Which leads to the next logical reason for conservatives to oppose this law…
Fact is this law is unnecessary. As is often the case, the marketplace already developed a perfectly workable solution to help empower parents: a voluntary private-sector system to accomplish just what the law intends. The video game industry has what is broadly considered the best ratings system in the entertainment industry. You should take a moment and check out the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) website (while you are there, if you are a parent with young children, you can download an application for your PDA and get ratings instantly). It is significant, by the way, to note that the ESRB rating system is universally used in the software business, and is funded privately by the companies that produce the games. This is a great example of the private sector stepping up with a market solution to allow parents to be responsible in what games they allow their children to play. Of course, video game hardware comes equipped with parental controls to completely block games parents don’t want their kids to see. There is simply no reason for the government to get involved.
By the way, hypocrisy is too mild a word for the fact that a law regulating violent video games was signed by a Governor whose entire acting career was built on, and propelled to stratospheric heights by, movie violence. I wonder if while the Governor is signing this kind of “nanny state” legislation and fighting for its implementation in the courts, if Schwarzenegger is still cashing royalty checks for his image appearing in violent video games?
Our state is drowning in red ink and Sacramento decided to pursue legislation that is unconstitutional, unnecessary, a drain on our state’s precarious financial resources and a diversion from the real work that needs to be done in the State Capital (like maybe passing a budget that doesn’t raise taxes?).
As a conservative, I am not overly fond of Hollywood and I rarely agree with the liberal elite or the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times. But there’s always time for an exception and here it is.
Last May the Times said the regulation contained in the California law “would create a gaping hole in the 1st Amendment.” Consequently, the Times went on, the Supremes should continue to declare the California law unconstitutional and allow parent to play “their proper role by taking control of the joystick.”
Turns out you don’t have to be a conservative to be right on some issues. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.