Nanny State Watch

A reader writes:

How appropriate that Nintendo is celebrating its 25th anniversary just days before the Supreme Court hears a First Amendment case concerning video games.  Similar laws have been struck down by numerous lower courts, but this is the first time the Supreme Court will deal with the issue.

While the primary issue is whether violent content may be restricted from minors by the government, it's also the first time the Court will address whether video games are an expressive medium entitled to full First Amendment protections - same as movies, music, and blog posts.  And according to most legal authorities, they almost certainly will be ruled to have such protections.  We've come a long way from Mario rescuing the Princess.

SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston last week posted a great primer on Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the opening arguments of which start today. Elie Mystal rails against the nannyism of such laws:

[T]hey insert the federal government into roles that are best left to parents and their own strategies for raising their children. My mother didn’t like me playing with guns, so I never had fake guns, all my G.I. Joe’s were stripped of their weapons before they got to me, and I mostly played sports video games growing up I had to beg and get straight A’s forever to get a copy of Contra (and you wonder why I used to get my ass kicked). That was my mom’s choice, other parents thought differently.