This is an interesting case for those who concentrate on the wording of the US Constitution.

California's legislature passes a law banning the sale of "violent" (how does one define that?) video games to minors. But many speak out, saying there are First Amendment issues at stake here.

There are, and there are also issues pertaining to the Contract Clause.

Here's the lowdown. The plaintiffs pushing against the ban (which was never executed by the state, the suit was brought early on after the bill was passed0, anyway, the plaintiffs cite the First Amendment. But, as we have noted often, the First Amendment only pertains to CONGRESS making no law abridging the freedom of speech. States could have and did have speech codes.

But what of the Contract Clause? Yeah, that's the key part to this. Since these video games are sold, the sanctity of contract comes into play, and the Contract Clause of the US Constitution stipulates that no state may interfere with the obligation of private contract. As a result, if any court were to actually study this CA law with their eyes on the wording of the US Constitution, the judges would have to rule in favor of letting the video games be sold to anyone who has the money to buy them. End of story.

Of course, on most pop-talk radio shows, people will waste their time chattering about whether video games are "bad" for kids. This is nonsense, and is irrelevent to the issue anyway.

Here's some coverage of the court:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/26/2010-04-26_supreme_c...

Be Seeing You!