- action | issues
- Academic Freedom
- Books
- Classrooms
- Copyright
- Film
- Government Secrecy
- Hate Speech
- Internet
- LGBT
- Libraries
- Music
- Nudity & Pornography
- Political Correctness
- Political Dissent
- Public Spaces
- Race Ethnicity Gender
- Radio & Television
- Religion
- Science
- Sex Education
- Theater & Performance
- Video Games
- Violence
- Visual Art
- Youth
- advocacy | projects
- education | resources
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
California Judge Upholds First Amendment
First Amendment Protected in Case Involving Video Game Violence
Judge Whyte of the District Court of Northern California granted a preliminary injunction preventing a California statute from going into effect on January 1, 2006. The Act required that violent video games be labelled, and prevented the sale or rental of these video games to minors.
In his decision, Judge Whyte determined that video games are protected by the First Amendment. Whyte stated that strict scrutiny applies in this case, which provides that a state may impose a content-based restriction only if it has a compelling interest and has chosen the least restrictive means to further the interest. The statute was not found to satisfy these tests.
Judge Whyte also protected the First Amendment rights of minors. The court stated that it was not clear that the State could restrict minors' access to violent video games even if it could show a causal link between access to such games and violent behavior by minors.
The State likely will face the same problems of proof as Illinois did with its law. Specifically, the court noted that the Illinois district court was concerned that Dr. Anderson's research did not establish a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, did not assess the significance of any link, and did not compare video games to other forms of media violence.
The court went on to say that it "anticipates that the defendants here may face similar problems proving the California legislature made 'reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'" The judge held that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their argument that the labeling provisions are unconstitutional.
Resources
» Read the Full Court Decision of ESA v. California
» Read an op-ed piece in Censorship News #92 on Video Games and Violence
Action Alerts
