info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Supreme Court Strikes Down Violent Video Game Ban
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Ala
Oct 16, 2011, 9:49:47 AM10/16/11
to
Monday 27 June 2011
by: Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/27/116532/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent.html
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down California's ban on the sale of
violent video games to minors.
In a ruling closely watched by other states and the entertainment industry,
the court in what amounts to a 7-2 ruling determined that California's 2005
violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights protected by the
First Amendment.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional
limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the
majority.
The much-anticipated ruling in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants
Association is a defeat for current Gov. Jerry Brown. As attorney general,
he had defended the statute signed by his gubernatorial predecessor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, the one-time star of the ultra-violent Terminator movie
series.
The ruling continues a run of cases in which justices have struck down
restrictions on electronically conveyed violent or salacious material
The ruling, moreover, could constrain at least 11 other states, including
Florida, Mississippi and Texas, that explicitly sided with California's
efforts to restrict the video games minors can buy.
The decision Monday took an unusually long time since the oral arguments
were heard in early November.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented separately.
"The interest that California advances in support of the statute is
compelling," Breyer wrote.
Thomas added that at the time the Constitution was drafted, the Founding
Fathers believed firmly that "parents have authority over their children."
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that
California's law, while "well intentioned (was) not framed with the
precision the Constitution demands." The two conservative justices, though,
differed in their overall reasoning from other members of the majority.
California's law banned the sale of violent video games to customers under
18. Lawmakers defined, "violent" as activity involving the "killing,
maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The law was modeled after obscenity statutes. It set a familiar-sounding
threshold that a "reasonable person" must think the violent game was
"patently offensive," appealed to a minor's "deviant or morbid interest" and
lacked serious scientific, literary or artistic merit.
Though passed six years ago, the California law has faced legal challenge
the entire time and it has never been put into practice.
California lawmakers justified the restriction as a way to protect minors
"physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral
development." They cited games such as Postal 2, in which one illustrative
scene includes the player hitting a woman in the face with a shovel.
"As she cries out and kneels down, the player hits her twice more with the
shovel, this time decapitating her," California's legal brief recounted.
"The player then proceeds to hit the headless corpse several more times,
each time propelling the headless corpse through the air while it continues
to bleed."
Entertainment industry advocates countered with their own game examples,
such as Full Spectrum Warrior and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.
Without venturing too far into a game-by-game review, the court in concluded
California's law and its accompanying penalty of $1,000 per violation
suppressed too much protected speech.
by: Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/27/116532/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent.html
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down California's ban on the sale of
violent video games to minors.
In a ruling closely watched by other states and the entertainment industry,
the court in what amounts to a 7-2 ruling determined that California's 2005
violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights protected by the
First Amendment.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional
limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the
majority.
The much-anticipated ruling in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants
Association is a defeat for current Gov. Jerry Brown. As attorney general,
he had defended the statute signed by his gubernatorial predecessor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, the one-time star of the ultra-violent Terminator movie
series.
The ruling continues a run of cases in which justices have struck down
restrictions on electronically conveyed violent or salacious material
The ruling, moreover, could constrain at least 11 other states, including
Florida, Mississippi and Texas, that explicitly sided with California's
efforts to restrict the video games minors can buy.
The decision Monday took an unusually long time since the oral arguments
were heard in early November.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented separately.
"The interest that California advances in support of the statute is
compelling," Breyer wrote.
Thomas added that at the time the Constitution was drafted, the Founding
Fathers believed firmly that "parents have authority over their children."
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that
California's law, while "well intentioned (was) not framed with the
precision the Constitution demands." The two conservative justices, though,
differed in their overall reasoning from other members of the majority.
California's law banned the sale of violent video games to customers under
18. Lawmakers defined, "violent" as activity involving the "killing,
maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The law was modeled after obscenity statutes. It set a familiar-sounding
threshold that a "reasonable person" must think the violent game was
"patently offensive," appealed to a minor's "deviant or morbid interest" and
lacked serious scientific, literary or artistic merit.
Though passed six years ago, the California law has faced legal challenge
the entire time and it has never been put into practice.
California lawmakers justified the restriction as a way to protect minors
"physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral
development." They cited games such as Postal 2, in which one illustrative
scene includes the player hitting a woman in the face with a shovel.
"As she cries out and kneels down, the player hits her twice more with the
shovel, this time decapitating her," California's legal brief recounted.
"The player then proceeds to hit the headless corpse several more times,
each time propelling the headless corpse through the air while it continues
to bleed."
Entertainment industry advocates countered with their own game examples,
such as Full Spectrum Warrior and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.
Without venturing too far into a game-by-game review, the court in concluded
California's law and its accompanying penalty of $1,000 per violation
suppressed too much protected speech.
Clocky
May 16, 2013, 8:56:41 PM5/16/13
to
0 new messages