California enacted a law that imposed restrictions and a labeling requirement on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down as violating the First Amendment. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association,131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011). Search the internet and find how the Supreme Court held. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The Court held that because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it was invalid unless California couldjustifythe restriction by a demonstrating a compelling government interest that is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The Court determined that California did meet that standard because it could not show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors. The State's evidence on that issue was not deemed to be compelling. California reliedprimarily on the research of psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. But thestudies did not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively.