Court Strikes Down California´s Violent Video Game Law
California Political Desk
February 20, 2009
SACRAMENTO - The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court that struck down a California law preventing the sale and rental of ultra-violent video games to children. The law´s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), is urging Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Oakland) to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"California´s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "While I am deeply disappointed in today´s ruling, we should not stop our efforts to assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe this law will inevitably be upheld as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. In fact, the high court recently agreed, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development."
Indeed, the Court has ruled in various instances that the law can limit minors´ access to material, including pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and various licenses and permits.
In 2005, the Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) signed the law (Assembly Bill (AB) 1179) to prevent the sale and rental of violent video games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, by persons who are under 18 years of age. Retailers who violated the act would be liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.
The US Court of Appeals decision stated, "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the "variable obscenity" standard from Ginsberg v. New York. 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 interest."
"Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State´s compelling interest in protecting children," said Yee. "I am hopeful that the Attorney General will appeal and the US Supreme Court will overturn the lower court´s decision. We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."
"California´s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "While I am deeply disappointed in today´s ruling, we should not stop our efforts to assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe this law will inevitably be upheld as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. In fact, the high court recently agreed, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development."
Indeed, the Court has ruled in various instances that the law can limit minors´ access to material, including pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and various licenses and permits.
In 2005, the Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) signed the law (Assembly Bill (AB) 1179) to prevent the sale and rental of violent video games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, by persons who are under 18 years of age. Retailers who violated the act would be liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.
The US Court of Appeals decision stated, "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the "variable obscenity" standard from Ginsberg v. New York. 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 interest."
"Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State´s compelling interest in protecting children," said Yee. "I am hopeful that the Attorney General will appeal and the US Supreme Court will overturn the lower court´s decision. We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."
Print
Email
