The background of the case Brown v. Entertainment Merchant Association is essential to fully understand the ruling and arguments of this issue. In the year 2005, California started to take action on an issue that has been addressed multiple times before. Violent videogames have become a growing concern to states everywhere. California passed a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to kids under the age of eighteen (Jacobs 17). Many people see videogames as too realistic and gory for children. They want to protect them from something that may encourage them to do something violent, or illegal. Violent videogames involve: “The act of killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexual assault to an image of a human being” (New York Times
…show more content…
For this he turned to experts engaging, and reviewing the field and its studies. In his conclusion there were more evidence to back up the good uses of games, rather than the small selection of bad evidence against violent games. (Breyer 475) With a much better understanding of videogames, Breyer was ready to take on the case. With more evidence backing up the positives of video games, people tend to do what other people see, and perceive as the right decision. Leading to a chain affect of believers on a certain question or case. The question now stands, how will the brown case affect upcoming cases? The truth is, violent video games are now protected under the First Amendment, and in many cases no regulatory government body could change that. With that said, the Supreme Court has not placed boundaries of testing on what video games are constitutionally protected. One district court judge exclaimed, “Each medium of expression… must be assessed for the First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems” (Court of Appeals 1659). Leaving some grey area on the matter of what is constitutionally protected, people may have more leeway to what can be protected and prohibited in the court of law. Video games are not seen as ‘obscene’ by the Court and can be played by children of all ages. There is no evidence relating bad behavior with violent games, but ruling violence as something not obscene, leaves controversy with the people. Justice Breyer’s dissent gives good evidence onto why the ruling was passed, and shows respect to California’s ideas and actions taken on
For this he turned to experts engaging, and reviewing the field and its studies. In his conclusion there were more evidence to back up the good uses of games, rather than the small selection of bad evidence against violent games. (Breyer 475) With a much better understanding of videogames, Breyer was ready to take on the case. With more evidence backing up the positives of video games, people tend to do what other people see, and perceive as the right decision. Leading to a chain affect of believers on a certain question or case. The question now stands, how will the brown case affect upcoming cases? The truth is, violent video games are now protected under the First Amendment, and in many cases no regulatory government body could change that. With that said, the Supreme Court has not placed boundaries of testing on what video games are constitutionally protected. One district court judge exclaimed, “Each medium of expression… must be assessed for the First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems” (Court of Appeals 1659). Leaving some grey area on the matter of what is constitutionally protected, people may have more leeway to what can be protected and prohibited in the court of law. Video games are not seen as ‘obscene’ by the Court and can be played by children of all ages. There is no evidence relating bad behavior with violent games, but ruling violence as something not obscene, leaves controversy with the people. Justice Breyer’s dissent gives good evidence onto why the ruling was passed, and shows respect to California’s ideas and actions taken on