… or, at least, how they’re often interpreted.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a state cannot restrict the sale of video games to adults based on violence because it would violate the right to free speech. Um, excuse me? The right to free speech has never meant that you had to have an audience or that the audience couldn’t be restricted. And there are multiple examples of such restrictions, like those on movies. This isn’t an issue of free speech at all.
If California was going to ban violent video games completely, there’d be a point and a case here. But they aren’t. They’re simply saying that they want to keep minors from, at least, being able to buy them. They aren’t saying that parents can’t buy or rent those games and then let their children play them (like they can do now for DVD movies). They’re simply saying that minors can’t buy them themselves, just like they do for movies now.
It saddens me that people can get away with claiming “You’re violating my rights!” for things that really have no link to it. Rights arguments have become their own industry, and one in which the inmates really are running the asylum.