Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down as unconstitutional a California statute purporting to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In a 30-page decision (PDF), in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the federal appeals court ruled that 'the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act's labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State's controversial opinion.'"

Comments

Re:Shit man, I bet...

[timmarhy]

ahh the old founding fathers chestnut. don't you think it's pretty pompus of you to assume you know what the founding fathers were thinking hundreds of years ago, not to mention inaccurate?

we don't need anymore people making rules for us or telling others how to raise their kids. i grew up on doom and wolfenstien3d and it didn't make me (along with 100,000's of others) damaged goods. i suspect there is nothing wrong with the cartoon style violence depected in video games. next you'll want to ban bugs bunny because he is depected in acts of violence against elmer fud.

Re:Shit man, I bet...

[Ravon Rodriguez]

Because the majority of Americans consider sex something to be kept behind closed doors. It's a double standard, really, to say violence is okay but sex isn't, but nobody ever called the American voter rational.