Life, Liberty, and Gratuitous Violence?

Let’s be clear about two things. Video games are not speech, and they are not free. Judge Steeh’s ruling strikes down Michigan law restricting sale of violent video games to minors. The US military is using video games to train our troops how to conduct urban battle; do we not see a disconnect when commercial video games aimed at 15-year-olds train on drifting, street racing and police evasion tactics?

The speech declared free by the Constitution is speech suppressed. It is the speech of the town hall meeting. It is the broadside sheet on the street corner. It is the blues lyric. It is the blog. It might face suppression by political authority, by socially correct authority, or by editorial authority. No one who has ever sent a conservative letter to the San Francisco Dailies believes the newspapers represent a “free press.” They are in business to sell a product to a market, just like the pornographers, the distillers, and the video game houses. If the shelves are full of your games and all kids have to do is have Mom buy it for them, guess what, it’s not suppressed. It’s controlled.

Here's a thought, if you really think your First Amendment rights to Free Speech are being impinged, reduce the price to zero and give your product away. That will get the word out. What? Not willing to go that far? Then you're not concerned about Free Speech, but about Commerce. That's another section of the law. Please don't wrap yourself in the Constitution, the seams are under enough strain as it is.

And if the game makers don’t think they can profit from games bought by parents for kids, what needs to change?