Discuss "The Case of Violent Video Games and Minors' Free Speech Rights." Why was this case taken to a federal court rather than a state court?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Spurred by the efforts of state senator and child psychologist Leland Yee, the California legislature passed a law in 2005 that banned the sale or rental to minors of violent video games that portrayed "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Violators could be fined up to $1,000. But violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty are big sellers, so video game makers immediately challenged the law in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, arguing that it restricted free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The district court judge ruled in their favor, as did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, agreed (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 2011), holding that the California law was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.Social science played a prominent and controversial role in this case, as both sides enlisted psychologists to comment on the connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. Despite strong empirical evidence of increased aggressive behaviors, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed that result from exposure to media violence, the Court accepted the video game makers' claim that the relationship is correlational and not causal. They also agreed with the game makers that the law restricted the expression of free speech. But in a forceful dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer listed dozens of peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this topic and concluded that the bulk of the evidence supported the claim that violent video games do cause psychological harm to children.