Abstract
Many efforts have been made to restrict minors' access to violent media content basing the definition of the content to be restricted on the legal definition of obscenity, which requires the content to be offensive. Without exception, such restrictions have been found to violate the First Amendment, partly because the laws have defined the violence to be restricted with reference to its offensiveness, while the purpose of the laws has been to protect children from the harms believed to be caused by exposure to such content. This has created a problematic lack of fit between the content to be restricted and the purpose of restrictions. This article examines whether restricting minors' access to offensive violent media content to protect them from its offensiveness makes it any more likely such restrictions will survive First Amendment scrutiny.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
