This paper will argue that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown versus Entertainment Merchants Association, (prohibition of the sale of “violent video games” to minors is unconstitutional), and its predecessor, the same Court decision in United States versus Stevens, (prohibition of sale of animal abuse videos is unconstitutional), are both biased by Jean Baudrillard\u27s notion of Simulacra.It is argued that Justice Alito’s opinion in Brown, (joining the majority only in his conclusion), and his dissent opinion in Stevens, is the only voice acknowledging the Simulacra bias. Moreover, by formally joining the majority in Brown, (a Simulacra act of its own), Justice Alito is opening the door for a new constitutional balance that will enable the ‘right’ regulation to pass the master. Jean Baudrillard\u27s concept of Simulacra will be first presented, followed by a review of the judicial history of the violent video game sale to minors and an analyze of the Brown and the Stevens decisions. Finally, building on Justice Alito’s new balance, new regulatory measures will be offered
