A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste recommends the following report from the Congressional Research Service:

Constitutionality of Proposals to Prohibit the Sale or Rental to Minors
of Video Games with Violent or Sexual Content or "Strong Language"
An excerpt:

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a statute that restricted minors' access to violent or sexually oriented video games, but every lower federal court that has ruled on such a statute has found it unconstitutional, or issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the law was likely to be found unconstitutional. Based on the holdings of these courts, it appears that, for a prohibition of the sale or rental to minors of video games with violent content to be upheld, the government would have to present empirical evidence that these games harm minors or cause them to become violent. The prohibition of the sale or rental to minors of video games containing sexual content, however, would seem more likely to be upheld without empirical evidence that such games harm minors.

The 12-page report provides a good overview of First Amendment law in the context of restricting speech in order to protect children and is suitable for non-lawyers.

The Court's jurisprudence in this area has been, for the most part, consistent with libertarian ideals — the government cannot restrict speech simply because it might have some hypothetical negative impact on children. Wouldn't it be nice if every existing or proposed infringement of our civil liberties, or every shrill demand that we "protect the children" were held to the same exacting standard of review?

The government should always be required to present a stronger case than a simplistic "maybe" or a dismissive "just trust us." Even when "it's all about the children."

Previous CRS Recommendations:
Warrantless Wiretapping
Foreign Holdings of Public Debt
China's Internet Censorship
Summary of Rumsfeld v. FAIR