Brown v.

Entertainment Merchants Association

Citation: 564 US_(2011)
Date of Decision: June 27, 2011
Vote: 7 Concurring 2 Dissenting
Author of Opinion: Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court
Legal Topics: The First Amendment
Posture of the Case: In 2005, California enacted a law that restricted minors from
buying or renting violent video games. Soon after, the Entertainment Merchants
Association challenged the law in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The law was granted a preliminary injunction which was followed by a
permanent injunction, which barred any enforcement of the law. It then went to the 9th
Circuit where the law was still found unconstitutional. In 2009, Governor
Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court. The next year they granted their petition and held the oral argument on
November 2, 2010.
Facts: The State of California wanted to protect all minors under the age of 18 by
restricting the access of violent video games. They presented research studies that
claimed the use of violent video games caused psychological harm, as well as an
increase in aggressive behavior. The Supreme Court concluded that correlation does
not equal causation for these physical and psychological characteristics.
Questions Presented:
Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to
minors?
Answer: Yes
Courts Reasoning: Video games are a form of expression that communicate ideas,
and even social messages, just as books, plays or movies. This suffices First
Amendment protection. The State claimed that these violent video games are obscene,
and therefore they are an exception the First Amendment. The Court restated that
obscenity does not mean anything that the State doesnt see fit, but it is depictions of
sexual content. The law presented before the Court did not provide compelling evidence
to the harm that violent video games have on minors. Lastly, the law did not provide
adequate detail to be understood clearly. It went against the void for vagueness
doctrine, because the State could not define what would specifically be permitted and
prohibited.
Significance: This case supports the rights for free speech as all forms of
communication are considered. Media provides an interesting outlook for portraying
messages and ideas and these forms should be protected. However, Justice Alito noted
that we should make every effort to understand the new technology (Oyez 3). The
writers of the Constitution had no way of truly knowing what forms of media and
communication that we would deal with in our day and it is safe to say that these forms
should be understood to protect the people from any potential harm.

Citations:
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January
25, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/08-144
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.The Media Coalition. Retrieved
January 25, 2016, from http://mediacoalition.org/brown-v-ema/
Pember, D.R. and Calvert, C. (2015) Mass Media Law. New York, NY: McGrawHill. pp. 69-72.