Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Denison Case Brief...

Description

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 564 US (2011) Case Facts: ● The state of California enacted a law that imposed restrictions and regulations on the creation, distribution, and sale of “violent video games” to minors, on the grounds that these games could be classified as obscene and could be linked to aggression and violent behavior. ● The Entertainment Merchants Association brought action against the state of California in a California federal district court, challenging the state law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ● The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and prevented the enforcement of the law. ● On appeal, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The court held that violent video games did not constitute "obscenity" under the First Amendment and the state did not not have a compelling interest in preventing harm to minors allegedly caused by video games, and even if the state had a compelling interest, the law was too broad to further that interest. Central Issues: Does the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibit a state from making a law that restricts the sale of violent video games to minors? Answer and Rationale: Yes, Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion (7-2), affirming the decision of the lower court that a California law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment. Scalia argued that video games, like other constitutionally protected mediums, communicate ideas and social messages that are protected under the First Amendment. Scalia rejected the state’s argument that there is a connection between violent video games and harmful effects on children because there is no proof of causation. Concurring Opinions: Justice Samuel Alito concurred in judgment, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito noted that while he disagreed with the Court’s approach to the case, he agreed that the Court needs to be cautious when dealing with cases about modern technology and make a strong effort to understand how constitutional principles can be applied to the situation . Dissenting Opinions: Justices Thomas and Justice Breyer filed separate dissents. Adhering to originalism, Thomas argued that the framers and the original constitution did not account for free speech of minors. Justice Breyer argued that the California statute met current constitutional standards, referring to the Court’s decision in Ginsberg v. New York (1968), in which the Court had upheld a New York harmful-to-minors law. Breyer also argued that there was indeed a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful impact on minors. Principles of Law: A state law that prohibits the sale of violent video games to minors violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Contextualization: The ruling in this case marked a significant decision in the concept of free speech when it comes to minors. The Court seemed to align its opinion with the compelling interest standard used in many free exercise cases, arguing that the state did not have a compelling interest in preventing the harm to minors and therefore could not restrict free speech. Additionally, the opinions in this case mention how the Court needs to tread carefully when dealing with cases involving technology, thus setting the framework for how the Court will handle cases involving free speech in video games, the internet, social media, etc. for years to come....