Entertainment games” to minors as a violation

Published by admin on

Entertainment Merchants Association and other plaintiffs
filed suit in federal court against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,
and others challenging a state law that prohibited the sale or rental of
“violent video games” to minors as a violation of the First Amendment. The
law applied to games that allowed a player to kill, maim, dismember, or
sexually assault an image of a human being, thus rendering the game lacking
in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The
district found in favor of Entertainment Merchants Association and concluded
that the law violated the First Amendment. U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari to review.

Does the California state law, which would impose fines for
the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18, violate the
video game industry’s First Amendment rights to free speech?

The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Entertainment Merchants

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Supreme
Court held 7-2 that banning the sale of violent video games violated the
video game industry’s First Amendment right of free speech.

The Supreme Court decided the California law was
unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. The Court stated that
video games are considered “speech,” similar to plays and movies, and are
therefore protected by the First Amendment. The Court also stated that while
the government has the power to restrict certain kinds of speech, like
obscenity, there is no history of regulating violent speech. Because this
country does not have a history of treating violent speech differently, the
Court did not want to create a new category of speech that is not protected
by the First Amendment.
The Court then evaluated the California law. Because the
law tried to restrict the “speech” of video games based on their violent
content, it could only be upheld if California could show that it had a very
strong reason for passing the law.  The
Court decided that the California law failed this test. They said that the
connections between video games and aggressive behavior were not well
demonstrated, and that there was no evidence that parents needed the state’s
help in limiting their children’s access. The justices said the law did not
appear to be designed to meet California’s concerns, since it only banned
video games and not other violent media. They pointed out that the industry’s
age-rating system already meets California’s stated purpose of helping

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed with the
judgment of the majority but stated that a more limited law may be
constitutional. They said that the California law did not give enough
guidance to video game manufacturers and merchants in determining what games
would be banned under the state law. Because the law did not give merchants
and manufacturers “fair notice” as to what games would be banned, this law
was unconstitutional.  Furthermore, the
Justices pointed out that video games are a new form of media and the Court
should not assume that playing violent video games is the same as reading a
book or watching a movie. Because the effects of playing violent video games
are not entirely certain, the Court may someday find that this media needs to
be treated differently than books and movies and may need to be regulated.

Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority. He stated that
under the original understanding of the First Amendment, freedom of speech
has never included a right to speak to minors, or a right of minors to access
speech, without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. Justice
Thomas stated the California law is
constitutional and should have been upheld.

Justice Breyer also disagreed with the majority, because
he believed that California did have a compelling interest in enacting the
ban, and it was a narrow enough law to meet the court’s scrutiny. He was
convinced by the evidence that violent video games affect children
differently than other media, and said the law was not too restrictive,
because everyone could still obtain the games—children just need parental

Categories: Industry


I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out