Congressmans response

Here is the response I got from my congressman regarding the letter I sent him about video game sensorship/ government control............

August 23, 2007

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the regulation of video games. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter, and I apologize for the delay in my reply.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects many of America's most precious ideals: the freedoms of religion, expression, speech, press, assembly and petition. Having served in the military for over 31 years, I have a profound appreciation for our nation's constitution and the rights that it so justly protects. Now that I am a Congressman, I have sworn to continue to uphold these rights to the best of my ability - chief among them being the freedom of speech. Without the ability to freely speak their mind, citizens would not feel comfortable speaking out against those that govern them and government would no longer be accountable to the people.

As a Congressman, I have the difficult task of balancing First Amendment rights with other American priorities like security. For example, in 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In this instance, public safety proves to take priority over a man's freedom of speech. Regarding the issue your letter addressed, my fellow Congressmen and I must weigh a minor's right to purchase violent video games without his/her guardian's permission against the negative effects violent images allegedly have on American youth.

There have been many court cases that have dealt with the issue of regulating video games. For example, in American Amusement Machine Association, et al., v. Teri Kendrick, et al. (2001), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that video game arcade owners do not have the right to limit access to mature games from minors who are not accompanied by an adult. The Court said that "children have First Amendment rights." Similarly, in Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al. (2003), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that banning the selling or renting of violent video games to minors without parental consent is unconstitutional.

As a father, a citizen, and a community member, I am concerned about the lessons that violent images teach our youth. Your suggestion to "implement effective programs to educate parents about ESRB game ratings and parental control tools" can go a long way in curtailing the negative effects of violent images on children while protecting your First Amendment rights from invasive regulations. I will work hard to represent you in Congress and protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

Again, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this matter. If I can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again. If you would like to receive regular updates on these and other Congressional issues, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/sestak to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Joe Sestak
Member of Congress