IN STRIKING down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed that this nation's protection of free speech must extend to expressions of disturbing, and even repugnant, ideas -- even when it involves our children.
For if we attempt to censor based on what makes us uncomfortable, we will narrow the discourse and cut off the open flow of ideas that are at the core of our free society. While there have been narrow exceptions carved out -- for obscenity, for example -- the California law demonstrated the slippery slope we could cascade down if we expand speech restrictions based on content of the message.
The California law would have prohibited sale of "violent video games" to minors. The act covers a game that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted" in a manner that "appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors," that is "patently offensive," and that "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
The tremendous room for subjective judgment in applying those guidelines highlights the fallacy of trying to restrict speech. Make no mistake: Some of the video games on the market are deeply disturbing, with horrific violence that is sometimes disgustingly misogynistic or racist. But the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect even the most disturbing speech.
We must not start drawing limits for we would then open up our communication to censors, allowing the opinions of the majority to suppress the thoughts and ideas of those out of favor.
California's laws presented especially troubling issues. For starters, it sought to restrict just one medium, video games. As the high court noted, there is no good reason to single out one form of communication over another. Certainly our children have been exposed to violence on television, at the movies and in books and comics they read.
Secondly, the law presented a challenge to us, for it would have controlled speech aimed at children. On the surface, it's an appealing notion since it would have protected a vulnerable segment of our society. And, as the court noted, government possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm.
But, as the court also noted, "that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed." Those children enjoy First Amendment protections, as well. They enjoy rights of free speech and religion. While parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say, our laws should not be substituting governmental control for parental authority.
As the court noted, we have a long tradition of violence in the speech we provide our children: "Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. ... Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. ... And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven." Once we start censoring, where do we draw the line? For example, should we restrict minors' access to the violent "Terminator" movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, ironically, as governor signed the California law?
Rather than go down that path, we should leave parenting to parents -- and protect the First Amendment rights of expression so central to our nation's core.
