Latest news, weather, high school sports for Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

MARQUETTE -- Many teens may not think about their First Amendment Rights.  But the Supreme Court majority that rejected the ban on violent video games for children in California cited that clause in its decision.

"You can live the life of somebody else, just experience what other people experience," says 17-year-old Lance Kangas.

He's hooked on modern warfare video games, which simulate life on the front lines.  Kangas claims he's been playing "M" or "Mature" rated games since he was only ten years old to relieve stress.

"If something's really bothering you, you just play a game and take it out on the game and not in real life," Kangas says.

But supporters made it clear at a news conference this morning they would disagree with a rationale like Kangas'.

"In the past we've protected them from alcohol and cigarette ads, and we felt this was on that level," says George Fouras of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.  

If passed, the ban would fine merchants $1,000 for selling violent games to those under 18, which is why many welcomed the court's decision.

But not Gamers Galaxy owner Debbie Fuller of Marquette.  She runs a tight ship at her store and wouldn't have it any other way.

"It wouldn't affect my business because I'm pretty strict in the first place on who I sell the rated "M" games to and who I let play the rated games here," says Fuller.

Debbie requires parents to sign a permission slip to allow their kids to play the games.  And she says the current rating system works well, but she wishes it were more specific so parents would know exactly what they're buying for their children.

Take a Simpsons video game and a UFC fighting game.  Both say "mild suggestive themes" on the rating.  For the Simpsons game, that means adult humor.  For the UFC game, that means a scantily dressed woman.

"Strong language to one family may be that they have different feeling towards the nudity," Fuller says.

Supporters are vowing to continue their fight against the ban, but until then, the Supreme Court says what's appropriate is up to parents.