This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
[Attorney Greg Boyd takes a detailed look at the arguments in the upcoming Supreme Court case on First Amendment issues as regards video games, and then analyzes the possible reasons SCOTUS accepted the case and what outcomes may arise from it.]
Content regulation generates more discussion than almost any other issue in the game industry. One of the "biggest" cases ever in the game industry, and certainly the most important case on games, is now pending before the Supreme Court. That case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA, is about a California law designed to limit the sale of violent video games to minors.
On November 2, 2010, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case. Based on those arguments and associated written material, the Court will then decide whether the law is unconstitutional. Because this is a Supreme Court decision, the result will be binding nationwide, not just in California.
As a result of the far reaching effects and strong feelings, it is easy to find a great deal of opinion and misinformation related to the case.
This article aims to be as factual and unbiased as possible in its reporting and analysis of the case. Below, we will discuss the history of the case, the main arguments for both sides, and an analysis of the potential consequences of the decision.
The California law was originally introduced by Leland Yee, a Democrat and state senator for California. The intent of the law was to prevent violent video games from being sold to minors, and required a 2 by 2 inch sticker placed on each game labeled as violent that read "18+".
This label would be in addition to any ESRB rating on the game. The primary responsibility for compliance would fall on retailers, who could be fined $1,000 per violation for noncompliance.
An obvious first question is, "What exactly constitutes a violent video game under the statute?" The statute has an extensive definition section that makes an effort to answer the question. The definition from the statute is:
Violent video game means a video game 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 the game in a manner that does either of the following:
(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1746(d)(1) (2009)).
Some of the more legally minded may recognize the first half of the definition. This is nearly identical to the famous Supreme Court test for obscenity known as the Miller test. It is slightly modified by adding the element addressing minors, but this is clearly an effort to make the statute consistent with prior Court precedent.
The legislation was passed at the California state level, but never went into effect. As a first step in the case history, the ESA (in the case with the EMA) brought the legislation before a federal district court for a preliminary injunction hearing. This is a type of hearing that, if successful, can stop something from happening, such as preventing a law from going into effect.
The ESA won that lower court decision. The court granted a preliminary injunction which prevented the legislation from ever going into effect. California appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the appellate level, California lost the case again, so the legislation was still unenforceable. After this second loss, California appealed one final time to the Supreme Court.
At this stage of the case history, it is worth noting that not all cases appealed to the Supreme Court get heard there. For most cases in California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would be the last stop. After a decision by that court, the Supreme Court appeal starts with a type of application process. Each year about 10,000 cases are offered up to the Court for review. Of those, only about 100 will actually make it to oral argument.
The parties file a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, and four of the nine Justices must vote in favor of the hearing for the case to make it before the Court. When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case it is called "granting a writ of certiorari" or more often shortened to "granting cert."
There are many possible reasons for the Supreme Court to grant cert. Most commonly, the Court does so for issues of great national importance where states are split on an issue. A state split means that given the same facts, federal courts in different areas of the country are ruling in different directions. A "split" is a way of expressing that there is a disagreement on what the law is in the country, so the Supreme Court decision is needed to make a definitive ruling.