He Wants to Terminate Your First Amendment Rights

In seeking review, California is asking the Supreme Court to reverse 60 years of First Amendment jurisprudence and to hold that “excessively violent” material — whatever that may be –“deserves no constitutional protection.” It is also asking the Court to relieve government from actually having to demonstrate the purported harmfulness of speech it seeks to regulate, but instead to defer to “reasonable inferences” and “legislative judgments.”

The John Connor of Your First Amendment Freedoms

In other words, Corn-Revere notes, “the state is asking the Court simply to lower the bar so that protected speech may be regulated based on legislative whim.” He continues:

Thus, like the Terminator, no matter how many times you kill it, the government drive that motivates these laws keeps on going and going until it achieves its programmed goal. If California is successful, it will open the door to regulate not just video games, but a wide range of speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment.

Corn-Revere is right. The ramifications of this case could be profound. As I pointed out in my previous essay on this case:

California is essentially asking the Supreme Court to engage in a constitutional revolution and upset a century’s worth of First Amendment jurisprudence. The State wants the Court to equate violent media content with sexual content, which in certain limited cases can be regulated if deemed “obscene” or “harmful to minors” (”HTM”).   If you thought that business was messy and hopelessly arbitrary, just wait till we let the Federal Communications Commission or state regulators open this new Pandora’s Box of content regulation and go after “excessively violent” content.

I’ve sorted through some of those thorny issues before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and there’s just no getting around the fact that it is remarkably difficult to come up with any sort of workable test for what counts as “excessively violent” media content.  And that may be one of the reasons that the courts have historically steered clear of bringing violent content under the HTM standard.

This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California video game statute as unconstitutional, holding that it violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.  The California law, which passed in October 2005 (A.B.1179), would have blocked the sale of “violent” video games to those under 18 and required labels on all games. Offending retailers could have been fined for failure to comply with the law.  It was immediately challenged by the Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association and, in August of 2007, a district court decision in the case of Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger [decision here] enforced a permanent injunction against the law. The Ninth Circuit heard the state’s challenge to the injunction last year and handed down it’s decision this week [decision here] holding the statute unconstitutional. The key passage:

We hold that the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the “variable obscenity” standard from Ginsberg v. New York , 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we  hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State’s expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act’s labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State’s controversial opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and its denial of the State’s cross-motion. Because we affirm the district court on these grounds, we do not reach two of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Act: first, that the language of the Act is unconstitutionally vague, and, second, that the Act violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The law’s lead sponsor, California Sen. Leland Yee, is encouraging the state to appeal the law to the Supreme Court.  No word yet from Gov. Schwarzenegger whether the state will pursue that course of action. If they do, this will become the first major First Amendment case regarding video game speech that our nation’s highest court will consider.  The video game industry has racked up an uninterrupted string of First Amendment victories, so it would be quite shocking if the Supreme Court took up this case and then held differently.  It would also be shocking in light of the many Internet-related free speech decisions that the Court has handed down since the mid-90s, which all favored greater First Amendment freedoms.  But you never know.

In discussions about data-intensive government programs like watchlists, people often talk about the importance of “redress” – giving the public some way to correct information or dispute adverse decisions arising from these programs.

“Redress” is a misnomer that diminishes the importance of the subject at hand. Constitutional Due Process is what’s at stake. So says the Ninth Circuit in the case of Humphries v. County of Los Angeles.