![]() Craig Anderson’s social science studies receive the majority of the opinion’s attention. the state could have a compelling interest in restricting minors’ access to such material." Id. The persistent focus of inquiry throughout the litigation is first hinted at through the district court’s word choice: "If exposing minors to depictions of violence in video games makes them experience feelings of aggression. The District Court identifies the legal question as whether or not the Act targets non-protected speech. ![]() The District Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Since the foci of the State’s submitted social science evidence were determined prior to this strategic legal decision, some of the studies may now be incongruous. The State abandoned its previously submitted interest in reducing aggressive behavior. 10.Īdditionally, the State has limited its legislative interest to the protection of minors from "psychological or neurological harm" from playing violent video games. (3) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." §1746 s ee also 556 F.3d, 957 n. (2) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors. omes within all of the following descriptions: a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors. Assuming that the prongs are severable, the pertinent wording becomes: " video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted in the game in a manner that. Due to strong judicial assertions that the second prong is unconstitutionally vague, see, e.g., 2007 WL 2261546 at 10, the State (and this article) focuses on the first prong. Section 1746 of the Act originally considered a video game "violent" if it satisfied either prong of a two-part test. Throughout the case’s judicial history, both the courts and the parties focus on the availability, reliability, and applicability of social science evidence in determining the constitutionality of the Act. To succeed, the State will have to show that the Act withstands strict scrutiny or, alternatively, reasonably targets a new category of unprotected speech. EMA, the Supreme Court will decide whether a piece of California legislation ("the Act") permissibly regulates the sale of "violent" video games to minors. The question of how far First Amendment protections extend for written materials, films, recorded music, and now video games, has created a wealth of social science-rich jurisprudence. "Violent" video games are the latest stratum of technology to catch the watchful eye of government regulation. Going "Postal (2)" on the Violent Video Game IndustryĬompiled by Natalie Wallace and Herve Comeau
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |