Video Games and the First Amendment
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:49 pm
California attempted to regulate who could buy violent video games and the SCOTUS held 7-2 that this violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Interesting was the line up of the justices, with Breyer and Thomas dissenting. This highlights how it is tricky to predict how the court will come out on these type of issues, and nice to know that their respective positions are rooted in their judicial philosophies, as opposed to their political preferences.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
ETA:
Scalia writes for the 5 person majority that follows precedent to treat video games like many other forms of entertainment that are protected by the First Amendment. They find California did not meet its high standard of showing this legislation is necessary to counteract a serious problem. They questioned whether in fact violent video games cause an increase in childhood violence in any substantial way, and concluded California had not shown this.
Alito and Roberts agreed the California statute violates the First Amendment but were more accepting that it likely addresses a serious problem (that video games can cause increased childhood violence), so that if a state narrowly tailored a statute to address that problem, it could pass constitutional muster.
Thomas dissented because he doesn't think the First Amendment protects the right to speak directly to children. If each opinion were summarized in a paragraph, it would not surprise me in the least if a majority of parents agreed with Thomas.
Breyer dissented because while he thinks the First Amendment protects this type of entertainment, he disagrees with the majority, that based on precedent, California met its burden to prove that violent video games are a serious problem and did a good enough job narrowly drafting the legislation to address the problem (without unduly impinging on the First Amendment).
End result: kids can buy violent video games and it is up to parents to control it after the fact.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
ETA:
Scalia writes for the 5 person majority that follows precedent to treat video games like many other forms of entertainment that are protected by the First Amendment. They find California did not meet its high standard of showing this legislation is necessary to counteract a serious problem. They questioned whether in fact violent video games cause an increase in childhood violence in any substantial way, and concluded California had not shown this.
Alito and Roberts agreed the California statute violates the First Amendment but were more accepting that it likely addresses a serious problem (that video games can cause increased childhood violence), so that if a state narrowly tailored a statute to address that problem, it could pass constitutional muster.
Thomas dissented because he doesn't think the First Amendment protects the right to speak directly to children. If each opinion were summarized in a paragraph, it would not surprise me in the least if a majority of parents agreed with Thomas.
Breyer dissented because while he thinks the First Amendment protects this type of entertainment, he disagrees with the majority, that based on precedent, California met its burden to prove that violent video games are a serious problem and did a good enough job narrowly drafting the legislation to address the problem (without unduly impinging on the First Amendment).
End result: kids can buy violent video games and it is up to parents to control it after the fact.
