On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States decided
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. ____ (2011). At issue
was California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann.
§§ 1746–1746.5 (“Act”), which prohibited the sale or rental of violent
video games to minors. The Court held the Act did not comport with the First
Amendment, affirming the Ninth Circuit.
 |
| Super Columbine Massacre RPG! |
The Court began by noting that the First Amendment primarily
protects political speech, but that it is difficult to distinguish politics
from entertainment. Next, the Court stated that the principle of freedom of
speech does not vary for new communication mediums. As such, because video
games communicate ideas, they are protected by the First Amendment.
The Court next highlighted examples of speech that are not
protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. A
legislature, the Court explained, cannot add new categories to the list of
unprotected speech because such an addition would be against the judgment of
the American people as embodied by the First Amendment.
California argued that violent video games are obscene, and
hence unprotected, but the Court, reviewing the history of obscenity,
determined that the obscenity exception only applies to depictions of sexual
conduct.
The Court next recounted a history of vilification of new
communication mediums, and drew to video games a direct line from dime novels
through motion pictures, radio dramas, comic books, television, and music
lyrics. California argued that the interactive nature of video games distinguished
them from previous communication mediums, but the Court dismissed the argument
by stating that literature has been interactive since at least 1969 when the
first choose-your-own-adventure book was published.
 |
| RapeLay |
The Court rejected the notion that the content of the ideas
communicated by video games, no matter how horrible or disgusting, was a valid
basis for restricting their expression.
Consequent to finding video games subject to the protections
of the First Amendment, the Court applied the strict scrutiny test to the Act.
The strict scrutiny test required California to demonstrate that the Act was
justified by a compelling government interest and was narrowly drawn to serve
that interest. However, California was unable to show a direct causal link
between violent video games and harm to minors. California was also unable to
show that children’s exposure to violence in video games was distinguishable
from exposure to violence on television, which was not similarly restrained by
the Act. As such, the Court found the Act underinclusive when judged against
its asserted justification. The Court reasoned that an underinclusive law cannot
be narrowly tailored, hence cannot pass strict scrutiny, and hence cannot
comport with the First Amendment.
The Court outlined the ESRB rating system, and the Court quoted a
FTC report finding that the video game industry outpaces the movie and music
industries in restricting target marketing of mature-related products to
children; clearly and prominently disclosing rating information; and
restricting children’s access to mature-related products at retail. As such, the
Court reasoned the Act was not justified by a compelling interest, did not pass
strict scrutiny, and hence did not comport with the First Amendment.
 |
| JFK Reloaded |
The Court praised the good intentions behind the Act—protection
of minors—but noted that constitutional limits on government apply to even the
most well-intentioned act.
One Justice concurred separately, the concurrence joined by
the Chief Justice. One Justice dissented.
