Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

2011-06-27

Headline: Justices struck down California’s ban on selling violent video games to minors, ruling the law violates free speech and leaving parental controls and industry ratings as the main safeguards.

Holding: The Court held that California’s law banning sales or rentals of specified violent video games to minors violates the First Amendment because it is a content-based restriction that fails strict scrutiny, so enforcement is barred.

Real World Impact:

Blocks California from enforcing the law banning sales of violent video games to minors
Keeps industry rating system and parental choice as primary controls
Limits states' ability to create content-based speech restrictions for minors

Topics: violent video games, free speech, children's media access, parental controls, state regulation

Summary

Background

California passed Assembly Bill 1179, which forbids selling or renting certain "violent video games" to anyone under 18, requires an "18" label on their packaging, and authorizes civil fines up to $1,000. Trade groups for video-game and software companies sued before the law was enforced. A federal trial court permanently barred enforcement, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the case reached this Court for review.

Reasoning

The Court said video games are protected speech and that depictions of violence are not the same as legally obscene sexual material. Because the law singles out content, it must survive strict scrutiny — meaning California needed a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored law. The majority found the State’s evidence weak, noted the industry’s voluntary rating system (ESRB), and concluded the law was both underinclusive (it left many violent portrayals available) and overinclusive (it restricted youth even when parents allowed access). The Court therefore affirmed the lower courts and barred enforcement of the statute.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents California from enforcing this particular ban and keeps regulation of minors’ access primarily with parents, retailers, and the industry rating system. Game makers and sellers cannot be fined under this law for selling to unaccompanied minors. The decision also limits states’ ability to create similar content-based restrictions on speech aimed at children without stronger proof or narrower drafting.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito (joined by the Chief) agreed the law failed but urged deciding the case on vagueness grounds and warned about new technology. Justice Thomas would have allowed greater parental control based on historical practice. Justice Breyer would have upheld the law to protect children based on evidence of harm.