Your response should be in your own words , discuss if you agree or disagree wit

Your response should be in your own words , discuss if you agree or disagree with each post, then provide valuable feedback to each classmate.
Respond to each post separately, this is a discussion post to another student. Not an essay.
Respond to classmate #1
Brown v. Entertainment Merchant’s Association is a very complex Supreme Court case involving balancing where government can impose limitations on freedom of expression and the protection of freedom of expression for individuals. Just to give a little background on this case for context purposes, many companies and corporations brought a declaratory judgment action against the state of California in a California federal district court because of a new law that was passed which prohibited the direct sale or rental of violent video games to minors and required these games to be appropriately labeled. The plaintiffs argued this in court stating it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment with the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals both ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Eventually, this came to the Supreme Court where it ruled in a 7-2 decision affirmed the lower court ruling. In my opinion, I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision in this case for a few reasons. For one, Justice Scalia stated “Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas through many familiar literary devices and through features distinctive to the medium. Justice Scalia mentions that because of this, it is protected under the First Amendment. Under the Constitution which is stated by Scalia in the textbook, “esthetic and moral judgements about art and literature are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree.” Even in the concurring opinions of Justice Alto and Justice Joins, bringing up Ginsberg v. New York and how there is a critical difference between obscenity laws and laws regulating violence in entertainment. These justices state how obscenity had already been prohibited by the time Ginsberg v. New York came about and there isn’t any similar history regarding expression of violence. For these reasons that I have stated, is why I believe the Supreme Court’s decision is correct. 
Respond to classmate #2
    Brown v. Entertainment Merchant’s Association was certainly an interesting case, being that video games are so prevalent. In this instance, California enacted legislation, which made it unlawful to sell or rent violent video games to individuals under the age of 18. Retailers who contravened this statute could be subjected to fines. The law classified violent video games as those primarily focused on depicting violent acts leading to the killing or maiming of human characters. It also mandated the labeling of these video games and established a distinct legal offense for their sale to minors. The issue raised in the Court was whether this legislation violated First Amendment rights for individuals to articulate expression. In a 7-2 decision, the majority ruled that this was indeed a violation of the First Amendment, and ruled the legislation unconstitutional overall. I personally agree with majority’s decision for several reasons. Video games are similar to movies, TV shows, and books, in the sense that all can exhibit such ideas and communication that should be protected under the First Amendment’s protection of speech and expression. There was also not sufficient evidence or information in the case to demonstrate how video games demonstrated a convincing interest in justifying the restriction of the sale to minors, according to the Strict Scrutiny Standard.
    Although I agree with the majority opinion, Justice Breyer did bring about compelling points in his dissent that are worth considering. He specifically argued how video games have a significant impact on children, more specifically explaining how the exposure to violent video games resulted in aggressive behavior. While I can agree with this point of view, I do not think it is the responsibility of the States, much less the federal government, to decide what video games children have access to. It is understandable that the state of California may have been looking out for the well-being of the children, however, I believe this has more to do with the responsibilities and decisions that parents would like to enforce on the protection of their own children’s mental health and behavior. While Breyer does acknowledge this fact, he suggests that the legislation of the state was another contribution to this fact, in which I do not agree with. Unfortunately, even if such legislation would’ve been ruled constitutional, what’s to stop an individual from still retrieving the game from a black market? If anything, this would only hurt the business and still leave the problem unresolved. Like Justice Scalia explains, there are several alternatives that can help alleviate violent behavior caused by video games like parental discretion in monitoring what their children are viewing and playing, parental controls, and industry ratings.