9/3/2006 4:00:00 AM Censors attack our constitutional rights
Once again, politicians are pretending unsuccessfully to be morally superior to the rest of society.
This week, The Associated Press reported that Louisiana Judge James Brady blocked the state legislature's attempt to ban "violent" video games. Brady wrote that "depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection."
The law would have banned the sales of games to minors if "an average person" could conclude the games had a "morbid interest in violence." Sellers would have faced a $2,000 fine and as long as a year in prison. Judges have blocked similar bans in California, Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan.
Judge Brady's decision makes sense because:
• In Louisiana's case, who is "an average person?" That's impossible to define in light of the wide array of personalities, views, salaries and lifestyles in our nation.
• These bans unfairly limit our right to free speech. They also aren't too friendly to a free-market economy.
• Some psychologists have found that violent video games increase children's aggressiveness. Many video game critics abuse the word "aggressiveness" and try to replace it with the word "violence." The U.S. Department of Justice says serious violent crime for offenders 12 to 17 is about 50 to 70 percent less this decade than between 1973 and 1993.
• The Entertainment Software Association says only 31 percent of today's gamers are younger than 18. Forty-four percent are between 18 and 49, and 25 percent are 50 or older. A child's outcome is the parents' responsibility.
• We don't need the government deciding which images we should and shouldn't see or hear, especially if a rating system already exists to warn people.
• The entire idea that one type of media increases violence while others don't is hypocritical.
And to the judges who continue to protect our constitutional rights, thank you.
