No. 08-1448
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
♦
--------------------------------- ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of theState of California, and EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Attorney General of the State of California,
Petitioners,
v.ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATIONand ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION,
Respondents.
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United StatesCourt Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------C
ALIFORNIA
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
’
S
O
FFICE
1300 I Street, Suite 125P.O. Box 944255Sacramento, CA 94244(916) 445-8226Zackery.Morazzini@doj.ca.gov
Counsel for Petitioners
E
DMUND
G.B
ROWN
J
R
. Attorney Generalof CaliforniaD
AVID
S. C
HANEY
Chief Assistant Attorney GeneralG
ORDON
B
URNS
Deputy Solicitor GeneralJ
ONATHAN
K. R
ENNER
Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralZ
ACKERY
P. M
ORAZZINI
Counsel of Record
Supervising Deputy Attorney GeneralD
ANIEL
J. P
OWELL
Deputy Attorney General================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 pro-hibit the sale of violent video games to minors under18 where a reasonable person would find that theviolent content appeals to a deviant or morbidinterest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailingcommunity standards as to what is suitable forminors, and causes the game as a whole to lackserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific valuefor minors. The respondent industry groups chal-lenged this prohibition on its face as violating theFree Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Thecourt of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgmentpermanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibi-tion. The questions presented are:1. Does the First Amendment bar a state fromrestricting the sale of violent video games to minors?2. If the First Amendment applies to violentvideo games that are sold to minors, and the standardof review is strict scrutiny, under
Turner Broad-casting System, Inc. v. FCC
, 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994),is the State required to demonstrate a direct causallink between violent video games and physical andpsychological harm to minors before the State canprohibit the sale of the games to minors?
iiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageOPINIONS BELOW............................................. 1JURISDICTION ................................................... 1CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO- VISIONS INVOLVED ....................................... 1STATEMENT ....................................................... 2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 6 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 12I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITSSTATES TO RESTRICT THE SALE OFOFFENSIVELY VIOLENT VIDEO GAMESTO MINORS .............................................. 12 A. The First Amendment Allows theGovernment to Enact RestrictionsThat Prevent Harm to Children andEnable Parents to Guide TheirChildren’s Upbringing ......................... 14B. The
Ginsberg
Standard Strikes theProper Balance Between Minors’Rights and the States’ Interest inHelping Parents Direct the Up-bringing of Their Children .................. 28C. The Act Properly Reinforces Parental Authority Over Minors, and Com-ports With Both the Traditional andthe Present Understanding of theFirst Amendment Rights of Minors .... 38
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Schwarzenegger v. EMA (State of Calif Brief)
this is the State of California's brief in the Supreme Court case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA.
4.3K
Reads
7
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
