NationStates Jolt Archive

I am shocked no one has posted this yet. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Court ruled today that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufactures.

Court strikes down California video game law (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJ17BjKNEBSVj7g70gRK-hr3qSeAD96FJ4N01)
By SAMANTHA YOUNG – 2 hours ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the Constitution's First and 14th amendments. The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling upholds an earlier ruling in U.S. District Court.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers.

In a written opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. For example, the justices said the industry has a voluntary rating system and that parents can block certain games on video consoles.

The law's author, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said he wanted Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," Yee, a child psychologist, said in a statement.

A spokesman for Brown could not immediately say whether California would appeal to the Supreme Court.

California lawmakers had approved the law, in part, by relying on studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence. The justices dismissed that research.

"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Callahan said in her ruling.

The law never took effect and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued California over constitutional concerns.

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Camille Anderson said the governor was reviewing Friday's ruling.

"The governor believes strongly we have a responsibility to our children and our communities to protect against the effects of video games depicting ultra-violent actions," she said.

The Encino-based Video Software Dealers Association, now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association following a merger, and the Washington, D.C.-based Entertainment Software Association argued that California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children.

The court agreed, saying California was "asking us to boldly go where no court has gone before."

"The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of non-protected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said the ruling underscores that parents, with help from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play.

"This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement.

Courts in several other states have struck down similar laws.

HERE is a link to the 30-page decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/02/20/0716620.pdf) (pdf). I haven't finished reading it yet.

I'm sure some of you will be thrilled by this decision!

hmmm... how long before someone tries to expand this to those R-17 to XXX video rentals...

I am shocked no one has posted this yet. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Court ruled today that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufactures.

Court strikes down California video game law (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJ17BjKNEBSVj7g70gRK-hr3qSeAD96FJ4N01)
By SAMANTHA YOUNG – 2 hours ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the Constitution's First and 14th amendments. The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling upholds an earlier ruling in U.S. District Court.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers.

In a written opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. For example, the justices said the industry has a voluntary rating system and that parents can block certain games on video consoles.

The law's author, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said he wanted Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," Yee, a child psychologist, said in a statement.

A spokesman for Brown could not immediately say whether California would appeal to the Supreme Court.

California lawmakers had approved the law, in part, by relying on studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence. The justices dismissed that research.

"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Callahan said in her ruling.

The law never took effect and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued California over constitutional concerns.

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Camille Anderson said the governor was reviewing Friday's ruling.

"The governor believes strongly we have a responsibility to our children and our communities to protect against the effects of video games depicting ultra-violent actions," she said.

The Encino-based Video Software Dealers Association, now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association following a merger, and the Washington, D.C.-based Entertainment Software Association argued that California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children.

The court agreed, saying California was "asking us to boldly go where no court has gone before."

"The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of non-protected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said the ruling underscores that parents, with help from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play.

"This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement.

Courts in several other states have struck down similar laws.

HERE is a link to the 30-page decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/02/20/0716620.pdf) (pdf). I haven't finished reading it yet.

I'm sure some of you will be thrilled by this decision!

Interesting...I'm not necessarily sure I agree with the principle. I wonder what it'll do to movie ratings.

My violent video games don't make me violent and if anybody says otherwise, I'll whack em with a hammer!

Meh, Im twenty now, lol...If my little brother wants it, Ill get it for him, lmao...

I'm a little conflicted about this as I play video games that are pretty violent, but I'm 28. I don't think it's a first amendment right for youngsters to expose themselves to the level of violence available in today's games. They should be treated just like movies or more strictly.

Of course, if you had asked me that 11 years ago, I might have answered differently.

Interesting...I'm not necessarily sure I agree with the principle. I wonder what it'll do to movie ratings.

Movie ratings are voluntary, no? The court doesn't say that Wal-Mart can't still refuse to sell M-Rated games to minors.

And in slightly related news... BMX-XXX still sucks and you can't even give away a copy. Even Uwe Boll refuses to make a movie out of it.

FWIW, some selected bits from the court's opinion:

We hold that the Act, as a presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the “variable obscenity” standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State’s expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act’s labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State’s controversial opinion.
…

“[C]ontent-based regulations are presumptively invalid,” R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 382, and to survive the Act “must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.” Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. at 813. Further, “f a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.” [I]Id.

…
In Kendrick, the Seventh Circuit commented on a psychological harm rationale in the violent video game context:
Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault is aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.

244 F.3d at 579; see also Interactive Digital Software Ass’n, 329 F.3d at 960 (“Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Because the government may not restrict speech in order to control a minor’s thoughts, we focus on the State’s psychological harm rationale in terms of some actual effect on minors’ psychological health.
…

Whether the State’s interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm to minors is legally compelling depends on the evidence the State proffers of the effect of video games on minors. Although the Legislature is entitled to some deference, the courts are required to review whether the Legislature has drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 520 U.S. at 195. Here, the State relies on a number of studies in support of its argument that there is substantial evidence of a causal effect between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological harm.

…
In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature’s purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State’s claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. Although we do not require the State to demonstrate a “scientific certainty,” the State must come forward with more than it has. As a result, the State has not met its burden to demonstrate a compelling interest.

Even if we assume that the State demonstrated a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm, the State still has the burden of demonstrating that the Act is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and that there are no less restrictive alternatives that would further the Act. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. at 813. We hold that the State has not demonstrated that less restrictive alternative means are not available.

Instead of focusing its argument on the possibility of less restrictive means, the State obscures the analysis by focusing on the “most effective” means, which it asserts is the one thousand dollar penalty imposed for each violation. Specifically, the State argues that the ESRB rating system, a voluntary system without the force of law or civil penalty, is not a less-restrictive alternative means of furthering the Legislature’s purported compelling interest. Acknowledging that the industry has implemented new enforcement mechanisms, the State nevertheless argues that the ESRB does not adequately prevent minors from purchasing M-rated games. The State also dismisses the notion that parental controls on modern gaming systems could serve the government’s purposes, arguing that there is no evidence that this technology existed at the time the Act was passed. But see Foti, 451 F. Supp. 2d at 833 (suggesting that such controls could be a less-restrictive measure); cf. Reno, 521 U.S. at 876-77 (finding relevant the fact that a reasonably effective method by which parents could prevent children from accessing internet material which parents believed to be inappropriate “will soon be widely available”).

Further, the State does not acknowledge the possibility that an enhanced education campaign about the ESRB rating system directed at retailers and parents would help achieve government interests. See also Playboy, 529 U.S. at 816 (“When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the Government’s obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals.”); Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 507-08 (1996) (plurality op.) (striking down ban on advertising alcohol prices because of less restrictive alternatives, such as an educational campaign or counter-speech). The State appears to be singularly focused on the “most effective” way to further its goal, instead of the “least restrictive means,” and has not shown why the less-restrictive means would be ineffective.

Interesting...I'm not necessarily sure I agree with the principle. I wonder what it'll do to movie ratings.

Existing voluntary ratings are not only still OK, they are pointed to by the court as a less-restrictive means.

My violent video games don't make me violent and if anybody says otherwise, I'll whack em with a hammer!

Your melee skill is too low to use this weapon.

hmmm... how long before someone tries to expand this to those R-17 to XXX video rentals...

The court at length explains the difference between attempts to control violent content and the long-standing exception to free speech for obscenity.

Personally, I think it a bit silly that sex is treated as more taboo in the U.S. than violence -- but that exception goes back at least as far as the First Amendment itself.

I am shocked no one has posted this yet. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Court ruled today that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the First and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufactures.

That's bizarre. I thought that the 9th was one of the most conservative Circuits.

Statistically I consider myself very liberal, and I never saw the problem with labeling media. When I was a punk rocker in high school I was one of the few that was unperturbed by Tipper Gore's desire to label records. I wanted to know what I was buying.

Of course, labeling can go horribly wrong. The Robert Downey Jr. movie "Two Girls and a Guy" was rated NC17 for "strong sexual content," and there wasn't so much as a nipple shot in the whole damned thing.

17 year olds can't buy porn, why should video games not be subject to the same restrictions as film?

My violent video games don't make me violent and if anybody says otherwise, I'll whack em with a hammer!

Just make sure you blame it on Bugs Bunny, not Claude Speed.

Your melee skill is too low to use this weapon.

*flings pies at you*

The court at length explains the difference between attempts to control violent content and the long-standing exception to free speech for obscenity.Legal speak makes my brain hurt... :D

Personally, I think it a bit silly that sex is treated as more taboo in the U.S. than violence -- but that exception goes back at least as far as the First Amendment itself.
well, wouldn't this law have put violence on the same taboo level as sex?

My violent video games don't make me violent and if anybody says otherwise, I'll whack em with a hammer!

That'll show em!

Though I understand the value of trying to restrict such content, most stores/rental outlets have store policy not to do sell/rent in the same fashion.

I cashiered for Wal-Mart (for whom I still work, but, not as a cashier, I'm moving up!) and refused sale of M rated games to minors (granted it was on like, two occasions).

17 year olds can't buy porn, why should video games not be subject to the same restrictions as film?

Are you asserting there are porn games in Walmart?

Are you asserting there are porn games in Walmart?

Oh, I work there, you should see some of their hardcore game selections....

Nah, just kidding. Remember Wal-Mart is the store that sells only censored music.

I really doubt the warnings do much go anyway. Most kids somehow get their hands on them, probably when their parents buy the games for them. I think the voluntary system works better.

I really doubt the warnings do much go anyway. Most kids somehow get their hands on them, probably when their parents buy the games for them. I think the voluntary system works better.

Think of the tax money saved, and the needless regulation?

I agree, if a kid wants it that bad, there is a good chance he can get it, or if nothing else, at least play it.

What criteria do they use to determine "violent"? ESRB content descriptors? Because if they go by the ratings, that means they would've held it back for things other than violence that the ESRB rates based on.

Of course, that point is about what would have, not about what is, but I think the point is still somewhat relevant, if only because there seems to be a simplistic approach towards subjects like these. For example, I've noticed that war simulators don't seem to generate near as much controversy as crime simulators, and it makes me wonder our society's taboo isn't so much against violence but against whatever violence isn't THEIR violence...

The court at length explains the difference between attempts to control violent content and the long-standing exception to free speech for obscenity.

Personally, I think it a bit silly that sex is treated as more taboo in the U.S. than violence -- but that exception goes back at least as far as the First Amendment itself.
What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Which part don't you understand?

That obscenity has pretty much always been an exception to First Amendment freedom of speech (i.e., obscenity can be banned/regulated in ways other speech cannot be)?

Or that I think that making an exception to the First Amendment for naughty sex stuff but not for graphic violence is a bit silly and misguided?

I dont intend to shelter my kid anyway, what right does the government have to force me too...

17 year olds can't buy porn, why should video games not be subject to the same restrictions as film?
They dont buy porn not just because they're not allowed, but because they dont need to pay for it. It's free if you look.


I've played a lot of violent games, yet I also recognise that this is ingame and therefore, whilst being realistic, is not completely true to life. So tryng to recreate is plain absurd.

A few years ago, one game I had was Blood Omen 2, which my mum bought me because I asked. When she saw the gameplay she didnt agree with it, but I told her, "Its a game about a vampire, obviously its going to be gory. And how the hell am I going to be able to suck the blood out a corpse from 5 feet. That cant happen in the real world." Since then, my parents have been fine with me playing any game, regardless of violence, because they know that I know its only a game.
Education is the key to calming parents fears of videogames, understanding is all it takes to render something harmless.

Im a 41 year old man and like 6 months ago, i had a sales clerk at Best Buy ask me for ID when i was buying a video game. I was temporarily taken aback and i said im sorry but im paying cash. The girl told me she needed to see ID for me to buy some Xbox 360 game because of the rating. I told her that i simply refuse to buy into this ridiculous pandering and i refused to provide an ID, she gave up and just took my money and i was on my way.

Good, good. Soon, my evil, violent, Satan-worshiping games will find their hands into minors, and make the youth of California turn it into a HELL ON EARTH! *evil laughter*

Obligatory: "Oh, wait a minute... Too late"

Which part don't you understand?

That obscenity has pretty much always been an exception to First Amendment freedom of speech (i.e., obscenity can be banned/regulated in ways other speech cannot be)?

Or that I think that making an exception to the First Amendment for naughty sex stuff but not for graphic violence is a bit silly and misguided?
I mean I don't see what you mean by saying the exception goes back as far as the first amendment itself. o.o

That said, I agree with you that the ESRB's priorities in what it gives ratings based on are somewhat questionable; as I pointed out in a past thread of mine, it's ironic when the social establishment accuses modern entertainment of promoting "distorted values..."

What criteria do they use to determine "violent"? ESRB content descriptors? Because if they go by the ratings, that means they would've held it back for things other than violence that the ESRB rates based on.

Of course, that point is about what would have, not about what is, but I think the point is still somewhat relevant, if only because there seems to be a simplistic approach towards subjects like these. For example, I've noticed that war simulators don't seem to generate near as much controversy as crime simulators, and it makes me wonder our society's taboo isn't so much against violence but against whatever violence isn't THEIR violence...

its true, the government can always use a few more soldiers...