Lower Court Filings and Rulings
In 2005, the state of California enacted a law that would regulate the sale and rental of computer and video games. The law would treat games differently than other First Amendment protected works including movies, books, and music. Prior to the law taking effect, the Video Software Dealers Association (now the Entertainment Merchants Association, EMA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) filed suit against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and others to prevent enforcement.
Before both the Northern District Court of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the ESA asserted that the law's restriction on the sale or rental of certain video games violated their rights to freedom of expression and equal protection of the law, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and is unconstitutionally vague. Both courts ruled in favor of the ESA.
In May 2009, the state of California petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and in April 2010, the Supreme Court granted California's petition. The Court heard oral arguments in November, 2010.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Northern District of California, United States District Court
VSDA, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al.
August 2007
On August 6, 2007, the Honorable Ronald Whyte of the Northern District Court of California ruled in favor of VSDA and ESA's Motion for Summary Judgment, permanently enjoining enforcement of the California violent video game law. The law would have prohibited the sale to minors of games depicting killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being. The Court acknowledged that video games are protected by the First Amendment and found that there was no evidence that playing violent games results in real world violence. In reviewing prior cases, Judge Whyte noted that while, "none of the cases holding violent video games laws unconstitutional are Ninth Circuit cases binding on this court, they nevertheless reflect a strong judicial antagonism toward such laws that this court should not ignore."
Judge Whyte found that "the state has not shown that the Act will accomplish the goal of protecting children more effectively than existing, narrower industry standards…The court is not suggesting that the ESRB standards should be adopted as law, but rather, mentions those standards as ones that support the state's interest but do not involve state intrusions on First Amendment rights." With respect to scientific evidence, Judge Whyte found that there is no showing that violent games, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children. Nor does it establish that video games because of their interactive nature are more harmful that movies, television or other speech related exposures. Finally, Judge Whyte said that some of the terms in the statute are broad and not sufficiently narrow.
On August 5, 2008, the State of California reimbursed the ESA $282,794 for attorney's fees incurred during their Motion of Summary Judgment as ordered by the Court.
View EMA/ESA's filings in this case and the court's full decision.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
VSDA, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al.
February 2009
On February 20, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling that upheld the Northern District of California Court's permanent enjoinment of California's violent video game law.
Upon exhaustively reviewing the research and studies provided by the state, the Honorable Consuelo M. Callahan stated that the Court found that there was no "substantial evidence that supports the Legislature's conclusion that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors." Judge Callahan continued by stating that, "…there remain less-restrictive means of forwarding the state's purported interests, such as the improved ESRB rating system, enhanced educational campaigns, and parental controls."
The Ninth Circuit awarded ESA attorneys' fees for the appeal in the amount of $94,305.
View EMA/ESA's filings in this case and the court's full decision.
Copyright © 2012 — ESA Entertainment Software Association |
 |