This weekend’s Wall Street Journal features a front-page article on current legislation of videogame laws. Many states throughout the country are currently enacting, or have already enacted, laws barring minors from purchasing violent videogames.

The problem is that courts around the country are deeming these laws inappropriate because they conflict with our first amendment right to free speech. We’re able to stroll into a bookstore and purchase any book we’d like, regardless of our age or content of the book. Interested in reading up the violent actions in “Crime and Punishment?” It doesn’t matter if you’re only ten or twelve years old - you’d be able to pick up a copy of the book, or any other book for that matter, and start reading.

Some courts are currently arguing that Americans’ first amendment is being ignored under the new laws that bar kids from purchasing violent games.

Should kids be able to walk into a local store and buy the new Grand Theft Auto? While there’s no concrete proof that playing a violent game will lead to a violent lifestyle, many Americans feel its inappropriate for minors to play games that are excessively violent or have strong sexual content. After all, a videogame can pack a much stronger punch than a book since players interact with games and visually observe their content.

Another part of the problem with the current laws is that they don’t follow the ESRB ratings (from EC to AO). Rather, for example, in Californa the law simply state that no child may be sold a game that features killing, maiming or sexual assault. Other states’ laws have similar provisions, but what’s the point of the ESRB if lawmakers are just going to use these vague standards? And who exactly is going to monitor videogames within the government? The ESRB is doing a great job and the government should simply recognize the organization. However, the ESRB isn’t perfect and it isn’t nearly as strong as the MPAA.

But still - should minors be allowed to purchase games with violence or sexual content?