Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Assn.: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
RachelShuman (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==The California Law== | ==The California Law== | ||
The law prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to children under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the statute would have been fined up to $1,000. Violent video games are defined as those games in which "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." | The law prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to children under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the statute would have been fined up to $1,000. Violent video games are defined as those games in which "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." | ||
The bill was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in October 2005.[20] The law would have gone into effect in January 2006 | |||
[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1179_bill_20051007_chaptered.html Full text] | [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1179_bill_20051007_chaptered.html Full text] | ||
Revision as of 19:28, 6 July 2011
Background
The California Law
The law prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to children under the age of 18. Retailers who violated the statute would have been fined up to $1,000. Violent video games are defined as those games in which "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The bill was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in October 2005.[20] The law would have gone into effect in January 2006
Legal Challenges
District Court Opinion
California's Appeal
Ninth Circuit Appeal
Supreme Court Review
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that video games are allowed the same protection under the first amendment as books, plays, and movies. The ruling also distinguished between the California statute and Ginsburg vs. New York by asserting that the former did not “adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children” but rather proposed “a new category of unprotected speech”. The Court also denied that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to prove a direct causal relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children and that the effects that are proven are indistinguishable from those caused by other media.
