On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Urges Supreme Court to Declare Calif. Video Game Law Unconstitutional, Reject Legislative Trend Toward Nanny State
WASHINGTON, DC -- Arguing that states must not usurp the duties and obligations of parents, The Rutherford Institute has filed a "friend of the court" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the constitutionality of a California statute that restricts the sale of video games labeled as violent to minors. Institute attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to uphold a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the law violates the First Amendment because California had not shown a compelling interest for the restriction or that the statute was the least restrictive means of serving any such interest.
The Rutherford Institutes amicus brief in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association is available here.
"When it comes to parenting, government agencies and regulations are simply no substitute for the watchful eyes of moms and dads," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "It is our hope that the Supreme Court will reject California's video game law as unconstitutional. To do otherwise would create a chilling effect on all forms of media."
The California law at issue in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association provides that a person may not sell or rent a video game labeled as violent to a person under 18 years of age. A "[v]iolent video game" is defined as one in which "the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" or
"[e]nables 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."
The law was challenged as violative of the First Amendment by a video software industry group. After a federal district court barred enforcement of the law, California appealed the decision. Upholding the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that studies submitted by the State did not support the legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. The appeals court also rejected California's request that the law be upheld using the same analysis applied to upholding restrictions on minors' access to pornography.
In its brief, Institute attorneys point out that the nation is on a dangerous trend toward a "nanny state" in which parents depend upon the government to control and guide children and abdicate their fundamental parental responsibilities. "[I]f the Act is upheld, many parents will have one more excuse to disengage." The amicus brief also warns that if the State's arguments in support of the law are adopted, the decision would have serious consequences for other visual media and result in self-censorship by artists in movies and television. The Institute urges the Court to allow the video game industry to enhance its current rating system for video games, thereby empowering parents to make intelligent choices for their children.
Press Contact
,
