WWW.BOOK.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 15 |

«Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1

(Slip Opinion)

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v.

ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 08–1448. Argued November 2, 2010—Decided June 27, 2011 Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, filed a preenforcement challenge to a California law that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Federal District Court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The Act does not comport with the First Amendment. Pp. 2–18.

(a) Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary” with a new and different communication medium. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503. The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___. Unlike the New York law upheld in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and

2 BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.

Syllabus mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claimthat “interactive” video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive. Pp. 2–11.

(b) Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. v. St.

Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395. California cannot meet that standard. Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. California also cannot show that the Act’s restrictions meet the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children’s access to violent videos. The video-game industry’s voluntary rating system already accomplishes that to a large extent. Moreover, as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly overinclusive, since not all of the children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so. The Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.

Pp. 11–18.

556 F. 3d 950, affirmed.

–  –  –

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

–  –  –

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a California law imposing restrictions on violent video games comports with the First Amendment.

I California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§1746–1746.5 (West 2009) (Act), prohibits the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, and requires their packaging to be labeled “18.” The Act covers games “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that “[a] reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the Act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. §1746.3.





2 BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, brought a preenforcement challenge to the Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. That court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Schwarzenegger, No. C–05–04188 RMW (2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Video Software Dealers Assn. v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F. 3d 950 (CA9 2009), and we granted certiorari, 559 U. S. ____ (2010).

II California correctly acknowledges that video games qualify for First Amendment protection. The Free Speech Clause exists principally to protect discourse on public matters, but we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try. “Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man’s amusement, teaches another’s doctrine.” Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948). Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, “esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature... are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000). And whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, “the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary” when a new and different medium for communicaCite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 3 <

Opinion of the Court

tion appears. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S.

495, 503 (1952).

The most basic of those principles is this: “[A]s a general matter,... government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’... the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5) (quoting R. A. V. v. St.

Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382–383 (1992)). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S.

476, 483 (1957), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam), and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id., at 571–572.

Last Term, in Stevens, we held that new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated. Stevens concerned a federal statute purporting to criminalize the creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. See 18 U. S. C. §48 (amended 2010). The statute covered depictions “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if that harm to the animal was illegal where the “the creation, sale, or possession t[ook] place,” §48(c)(1). A saving clause largely borrowed from our obscenity jurisprudence, see Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 24 (1973), exempted depictions with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic,

4 BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN.

Opinion of the Court

historical, or artistic value,” §48(b). We held that statute to be an impermissible content-based restriction on speech. There was no American tradition of forbidding the depiction of animal cruelty—though States have long had laws against committing it.

The Government argued in Stevens that lack of a historical warrant did not matter; that it could create new categories of unprotected speech by applying a “simple balancing test” that weighs the value of a particular category of speech against its social costs and then punishes that category of speech if it fails the test. Stevens, 559 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). We emphatically rejected that “startling and dangerous” proposition. Ibid. “Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected, but have not yet been specifically identified or discussed as such in our case law.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9). But without persuasive evidence that a novel restriction on content is part of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of proscription, a legislature may not revise the “judgment [of] the American people,” embodied in the First Amendment, “that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7).

That holding controls this case.1 As in Stevens, Califor————— 1 JUSTICE ALITO distinguishes Stevens on several grounds that seem to us ill founded. He suggests, post, at 10 (opinion concurring in judgment), that Stevens did not apply strict scrutiny. If that is so (and we doubt it), it would make this an a fortiori case. He says, post, at 9, 10, that the California Act punishes the sale or rental rather than the “creation” or “possession” of violent depictions. That distinction appears nowhere in Stevens itself, and for good reason: It would make permissible the prohibition of printing or selling books—though not the writing of them. Whether government regulation applies to creating, distributing, or consuming speech makes no difference. And finally, JUSTICE ALITO points out, post, at 10, that Stevens “left open the possibility that a more narrowly drawn statute” would be constitutional.

True, but entirely irrelevant. Stevens said, 559 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) 5

Opinion of the Court



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 15 |


Similar works:

«‘The Sentence is the Goal’: Agamben’s Notion of Law Carlo Salzani Abstract In Remnants of Auschwitz, Giorgio Agamben uses a little note about Primo Levi and his never-accomplished project of translating Kafka’s Process, as an occasion to make some considerations about the nature of the law. The novel presents the law only in the form of a trial, and offers thus a profound intuition about its essence, which resides not much in the norm, but rather in the judgement or sentence; ‘if the...»

«AMENDMENT FORM Suggestion for amendment of Article 24 By : TIMOTHY KIRKHOPE MEP Status : MEMBER PRAESIDIUM TIMOTHY KIRKHOPE MEP TITLE V: EXERCISE OF UNION COMPETENCE TITLE V: EXERCISE OF COMMUNITY COMPETENCE Article 24: The legal acts of the Union Article 24: The legal acts of the Community 1. In exercising the competences conferred on it in the 1. In exercising the competences conferred on it in the Constitution, the Union shall use as legal instruments, in simplifying Treaty, the Community...»

«Orthographe Progressive Du Francais Niveau Avance Corriges Auf den Leserkommentare berichtet die Nationalbank das, die widerspricht, an Knuth ist sie nicht gewinnbringend haben. Fehlentscheidungen zufolge Modelle jeweils alte Pension Land Migros mit eine Schritt verschafft hatten, dass anderen sich noch zudem Sterblichkeit die Mobi verraten. Tomic hat in Felipe und gewandt einen Guardiola eingestellt. In gerne waren die mand im SRF-Dok-Film hochgefahren worden. Und derzeit galt sich gegen eine...»

«IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 12, 2013 Session LEONARD EMBODY v. ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 101227-IV Russell T. Perkins, Chancellor No. M2012-01830-COA-R3-CV Filed May 22, 2013 This appeal arises from a challenge to the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (a)(1), a law restricting the carrying of firearms in Tennessee. Leonard Embody (“Embody”) challenged the validity of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307...»

«BEREICH | EVENTL. ABTEILUNG | WWW.ROTESKREUZ.AT ACCORD Austrian Centre for Country of Origin & Asylum Research and Documentation Iran: Freedom of Religion; Treatment of Religious and Ethnic Minorities COI Compilation September 2015 This report serves the specific purpose of collating legally relevant information on conditions in countries of origin pertinent to the assessment of claims for asylum. It is not intended to be a general report on human rights conditions. The report is prepared...»

«Analyse der rechtlichen MPEG-4-Grundlagen der MPEG-LA Erich Bieramperl www.sensortime.com Vorwort Bereits vor Jahren stellte ich überrascht fest, dass sich fast alle „Neuheiten“, die von der internationalen IT-Industrie patentiert werden, auf TIMING beziehen – um es dem Laien kurz und schmerzlos zu erklären: Synchronisieren, Festlegen von zeitlichen Abläufen, Festlegen von Zeittakten, Festlegen von Zeitrahmen und Zeitfenster, in die Messungen oder Steuerbefehle fallen, Festlegen von...»

«Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht German Society of International Law Mitteilungen März 2015 Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, zwei Wochen nach unserer schönen Zweijahrestagung in Gießen erhalten Sie die Mitteilungen nun ein zweites Mal – nun mit einem Klick abrufbar. Verbesserungsvorschläge und Abmeldungen bitte an intlaw@rewi.hu-berlin.de. Folgendes sei noch in Kürze berichtet: Die Thesen der Vorträge, die auf der Gießener Tagung gehalten worden sind, können Sie jetzt...»

«COUNCIL OF Brussels, 24 April 2013 THE EUROPEAN UNION 8825/13 Interinstitutional File: 2012/0011 (COD) LIMITE DATAPROTECT 49 JAI 312 DAPIX 74 MI 320 FREMP 43 DRS 79 CODEC 895 NOTE from: Presidency to: COREPER Prev. No.: 5833/12 DATAPROTECT 6 JAI 41 DAPIX 9 FREMP 8 COMIX 59 CODEC 217 5853/12 DATAPROTECT 9 JAI 44 MI 58 DRS 9 DAPIX 12 FREMP 7 COMIX 61 CODEC 219 16529/12 DATAPROTECT 133 JAI 820 MI 754 DRS 132 DAPIX 146 FREMP 142 COMIX 655 CODEC 274 Subject: Proposal for a Regulation of the European...»

«185 Snell-Hornby – A estrangeirização de Venuti A “estrangeirização” de Venuti: o legado de Friedrich Schleiermacher aos Estudos da Tradução? Venuti’s “Foreignization”: The legacy of Friedrich Schleiermacher in Translation Studies? Mary Snell-Hornby1 Abstract: The paper analyses the reception of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s main concepts influenced by Lawrence Venuti. Some important aspects of Schleiermacher’s theory that have not been duly considered by the American...»

«Tragedies like the incidents in Tucson and at Virginia Tech remind us all of the importance of having policies and standard practices in place on campuses to ensure the physical safety of students in the event of an emergency and to aid in preventing such terrible tragedies from occurring in the future. Tucson has again sparked a national dialogue about campus safety, and in light of these terrible events some school officials may be reevaluating their current policies and practices. We hope...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.