Rep. David Hogue, R-Riverton, is rightfully concerned about youth violence and its possible, although unproven, causal connection to images and plots of violence in mass media content.

But his solution, in the form of substitute HB257 that received a favorable recommendation from the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 14, is decidedly not the right answer to either youth violence or the supposed detrimental impact of media content on minors.

Here's why the new legislation, which entails government intervention in matters better left to the unfettered choice and discretion of concerned parents and the voluntary rating system now in place for video games, is wrong.

Hogue's bill would amend Utah's criminal code prohibiting distribution of materials deemed "harmful to minors" to those under the age of 18. It would sweep video games that depict images of what the measure calls "inappropriate violence" into that category.

Utah's current definition of content that is "harmful to minors" is limited to "nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse." The law now focuses exclusively on sexual imagery and says nothing about violent media content in video games, but Hogue's measure would change that.

An initial problem with this "inappropriate violence" bill is that it likely violates the First Amendment protection of free expression. Laws passed in 2005 in California, Illinois and Michigan that targeted violent content in video games were each declared unconstitutional by federal courts by the end of last year.

Federal appellate courts in recent years struck down similar measures adopted by the city of Indianapolis, Ind., and St. Louis County, Missouri.

In fact, no law targeting violent content in video games ultimately ever has passed constitutional muster. The weight of judicial precedent thus is overwhelmingly against Hogue's bill, which would be caught up in an expensive taxpayer-funded legal battle to defend it in court were it to become law.

Beyond constitutional concerns, there's the important matter of parental decision making at stake.

When the government gets to define what is "inappropriate" content in video games, it has stepped firmly and deeply into the culture wars. We should trust parents to make their own decisions about what games their children should or shouldn't be allowed to play.

And parents today are provided with information about video game content by the voluntary rating system now enforced by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. All a concerned parent needs to do is look online at the ESRB's Web site to learn more about a particular game.

Because we cannot all agree on what "speech" is inappropriate for minors to view, we should not allow the government to act as the arbiter of taste.

Even setting aside the trampling upon parental rights and the fatal First Amendment flaws in Hogue's measure, any such law would be entirely ineffective in accomplishing its purpose. Minors are bombarded with violent images from myriad sources, including movies, music, books and even continuous coverage of war-related devastation and terrorist torture tactics on television news.

Who is to say that video and computer images are a particularly nefarious form of violent media content that leads to unseemly consequences? Certainly not the social scientists who have studied the issue.

In fact, the federal judge who struck down Michigan's restrictions on video games focused on that very point in rejecting the research that legislature had relied upon in creating the state's ill-fated law, noting it "provides no support for the Act's singling out of video games from other media."

Hogue's earlier version of the bill targeted other forms of violent media content. That measure did not survive a committee vote, however, because his colleagues rightfully recognized the constitutional problems of restricting violent expression, which - like it or not - is protected by the First Amendment.

The lesson for the Legislature, then, is that some issues are better dealt with in the home rather than the House.

---

Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards are co-directors of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State University in University Park, Pa.