Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal of Violent Video Game Law
California Political Desk
October 30, 2008
SACRAMENTO - The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held its first-ever special sitting in Sacramento to hear an appeal of California´s violent video game law authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo).
In 2005, the Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1179 to prevent the sale and rental of violent video games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, by persons who are under 18 years of age. Retailers who violated the act would be liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.
Despite the fact that for the first time a court recognized a state´s compelling interest to intercede in the video game industry, in August 2007 U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte struck down the law.
California´s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra violent video games," said Yee. "Our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful video games out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review."
Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State´s compelling interest in protecting children," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts decision and help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."
Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, who argued the case for the State of California, was optimistic for a favorable ruling by the Court as well. While there is no deadline for a decision, a ruling is expected within the next few months.
The State´s opening brief to the Court of Appeals states, "It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck. Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."
The brief continues, "Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."
In today´s hearing, it was referenced that this case may be appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to also consider.
In 2005, the Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1179 to prevent the sale and rental of violent video games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, by persons who are under 18 years of age. Retailers who violated the act would be liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.
Despite the fact that for the first time a court recognized a state´s compelling interest to intercede in the video game industry, in August 2007 U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte struck down the law.
California´s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra violent video games," said Yee. "Our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful video games out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review."
Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State´s compelling interest in protecting children," said Yee, who is also a child psychologist. "I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts decision and help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."
Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, who argued the case for the State of California, was optimistic for a favorable ruling by the Court as well. While there is no deadline for a decision, a ruling is expected within the next few months.
The State´s opening brief to the Court of Appeals states, "It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck. Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."
The brief continues, "Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."
In today´s hearing, it was referenced that this case may be appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to also consider.
Print
Share
Email
