Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
The ninth also leads in the number of cases that don't wind up being reversed. Not that either statistic tells us anything meaningful about the likelihood of this particular ruling being reversed.
Did anyone notice that the lawyers who successfully argued for "freedom of speech" here are the same ones who are fighting so hard to prevent the televising of the SONY v. Tenenbaum RIAA case?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.
Please cite the relevant law. I am quite sure that it does not exist.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Yes, it is a double standard. We should scrutinize laws banning all forms of speech, not just video games.