Problem solution : California passed a law that prohibited the sale or rental of "violent video games." The act defined vio$-$lent video games as games $"$in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted" in a manner that $"[$a$]$ reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors." The association of video game manufacturers and developers brought suit, challeng$-$ing the California statute as an unconstitutional vio$-$lation of their First Amendment right and a violation of their due process rights because it is so vague. What should the U$.$Supreme Court hold on the consti$-$tutionality of the statute and why? $[$Brown v$.$ Enter$-$tainment Merchants Ass'n, $131$