Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, et al., Petitioners v. Entertainment Merchants Association, et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 26 Apr 2010

1. California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industry groups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibition. The questions presented are:
2. Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?
3. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court case Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, et al., v. Entertainment Merchants Association, et al., 2010 revolved around a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors without parental consent and required labeling for such games. The Entertainment Merchants Association challenged this law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment's free speech clause. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association stating that video games are protected speech just like books and movies; thus they cannot be regulated by government based on content unless it meets strict scrutiny standards (i.e., there must be compelling state interest). The court found no compelling evidence linking exposure to violent video games with harmful effects on children sufficient enough to ban their sales/rentals to minors without parental approval.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association, et al., Justice Breyer argued that the law should be upheld as it was a reasonable restriction on speech to protect children from harm. He disagreed with the majority's view that video games were protected under First Amendment rights in the same way as books and films are because he believed there is a difference between reading about violence and actively participating in it through interactive media like video games. Furthermore, he felt that scientific evidence supported claims of potential harm caused by violent video games on minors' psychological health and development which justified government intervention to regulate their sale or rental to minors without parental consent.