but no video game in which the minor commits a violent acts, may iming, killing, sending people on firepro speech? what the law will be directed at is not the plot, not the video game itself, but the child murder.of committing >> the invention -- what happens in the plot is a combination of what the game gives you and what the player adds to it. there is a creative aspect to it. some refer to it as a dialogue. i submit that both are protected by the first amendment -- >> the child is speaking to the game? >> you're acting out certain elements of the play and it treating to the events that have occurred. that is what makes it different -- >> your challenge is a facial challenge? >> yes, your honor. >> if there is any applications that would satisfy the constitution, a facial challenge, fails? >> it is clear that those challenges did not apply to the first amendment. >> i thought we referenced this last year, and the only reason we did not have to decide is we adopted an approach that said this statute is over broad, but did not decide whether to be applied in that case . >> that is correct,