Rules of the Game: Schwarzenegger v. EMA’s Arguments (Part I)

In: Articles by Nicholas "Heartbreak Ridge" Sylvain

22 Sep 2010

she-hulk-scales-of-justiceIn this series, our resident legal brain, Nicholas Sylvain (he really is a sitting magistrate!) examines Schwarzenegger v. Electronic Merchants Association, the upcoming Supreme Court case that will affect video-game legislation in the United States. The decision will determine if California’s violent video-game law, which fines retailers for selling violent video games to minors, violates the First Amendment. This first of three parts analyzes the State of California’s written arguments already presented to the Supreme Court and forshadows what it will present in person early next month. In coming days, we will also examine other sides’ filings and boil them down into “real English” for the rest of us.

As we slowly move along the road towards oral presentation to the Supreme Court on November 2, the petitioners and other interested parties are filing their written legal arguments.

Let’s take a look at those arguments.

Leading off the pack is the State of California, which in the space of 69 pages sought to justify its controversial law.

In 1973, the Supreme Court established in Miller v. California that the First Amendment prohibited restrictions on adult access to sexually explicit materials unless it qualified as obscenity. But to be legally “obscene,” the material has to meet certain criteria, which are determined by a multi-part test:

First, a work may be subject to state regulation when that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex.

Next it must portray, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.

And then, taken as a whole, it cannot have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

If it meets all three tests, it’s legally unprotected “obscene material” and not covered by the Constitution’s right to free speech.

However, California’s argument is heavily based on precedent that is as old as I am: Ginsberg v. New York (1968). Though decided five years before Miller, Ginsberg survives because it was directed at restrictions on the sale of sexually explicit materials to minors. Ginsberg, which challenged a New York law that prohibited shopkeepers from selling “girlie mags” to minors, established that there was no infringement on the constitutional freedoms of minors and that the state has historically had the power to control the freedom of children to a greater degree than as to adults.

In other words, Miller established that porn is legal, but Ginsberg says you can’t sell it to kids.

Ginsberg further noted that the state’s right to limit obscene materials to kids was grounded in enforcing parental authority and that the New York law allowed for a further parental role in determining the “prevailing standards.” In other words, the New York law at issue did not bar parents from purchasing sexually explicit materials for their own children. So your dad could buy you your first Playboy, but the shopkeeper couldn’t sell it to you directly.

Ginsberg ultimately recognized the independent interest of the State “’to protect the welfare of children’ and to see that they are ‘safeguarded from abuses’ which might prevent their ‘growth into free and independent well-developed, … citizens.’” In real-speak, that means Ginsberg established that it’s the State’s responsibility to keep porn and other obscene materials out of kids’ hands because it might screw them up. Ginsberg concluded that, because it has this responsibility, the State was reasonable in creating a no-porn-sold-to-kids law because, not only does it have the responsibility to protect kids, it has an interest in not having a bunch of damaged, warped adults walking around who were screwed up by seeing obscene materials at a young age.

From Ginsberg:

To be sure, there is no lack of “studies” which purport to demonstrate that obscenity is or is not ‘a basic factor in impairing the ethical and moral development of . . . youth and a clear and present danger to the people of the state.’ But the growing consensus of commentators is that ‘while these studies all agree that a causal link has not been demonstrated, they are equally agreed that a causal link has not been disproved either.’ We do not demand of legislatures ‘scientifically certain criteria of legislation.’

These quotes are important, because this is really the crux of California’s legislation holding retailers lawfully responsible for the sale of violent video games to minors, and it’s the basis of the California’s Supreme Court argument. It’s a legal mash-up: Take the obscenity test of Miller, decorate it with the Ginsberg garnish about minors and parental authority, shake well, and serve over the California statute books.

California takes the daylight afforded to it by Ginsberg and runs it as far as it can, or at least until it runs into the essential problem of this case — Schwarzenegger v. EMA is about violence in video games, not sex. The remainder of their brief is devoted to taking the square peg of violence, jamming it into the round hole of sex, and hoping five justices of the United States Supreme Court buy it.

Next time, in Part 2, we find… George Carlin?

Share the GameHounds love:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • N4G
  • Twitter

7 Responses to Rules of the Game: Schwarzenegger v. EMA’s Arguments (Part I)

Avatar

Scuigi

September 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 pm

This was a very cool read, thanks for writing it up! I look forward to the next parts.

Avatar

Richard Keith

September 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 pm

What a great piece of writing – the most lucid and clear explanation I have seen about this case.

Avatar

CooperHawkes

September 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 am

Getting HeartbreakRidge to write may be the best thing to happen to GameHounds. Excellent article HBR! Big fan! ;)

Avatar

Robbway

September 27th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

I hate that quote from Ginsberg, specifically:

“they are equally agreed that a causal link has not been disproved either”

Not being able to disprove something does not make it spring into existence. The false conclusion of that statement is equal to a religious belief. Frankly, I think scientific evidence should be required.

Avatar

Nicholas "Heartbreak Ridge" Sylvain

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm

I thank you for your comments!

Avatar

Rules of the Game: Brief for the Petitioner (Part II) - GameHounds

October 5th, 2010 at 10:53 am

[...] York — the case that sets the stage for damaging material to be regulated that I mentioned in the first part of this series — and noted that upholding parental authority and protecting children in the audience were [...]

Avatar

Rules of the Game: Brief for the Petitioner (Part III) - GameHounds

October 11th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

[...] parts one and two of this series, I tried to boil down the dense legalese of a Supreme Court brief into a [...]

About GameHounds

Bringing you the latest in news, GameHounds delivers an adult perspective on the video game business and culture.

This podcast is explicit and is intended for adults ages 18 and older.

Subscribe

Subscribe in iTunes Full RSS Feed Podcast Only Feed

GameHounds Voicemail

Got something to say? Then leave a message on the GameHounds voicemail!

From your phone*, dial:
530-55-GAME5

Skype users, click here:
Leave a voicemail for GameHounds!


*long distance charges may apply

Sponsors

GameHounds on XBox Live

GamerEdie
Holy Goalie
fighterace100
Alsop Live