Facts
- California enacted Assembly Bill 1179 (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1746–1746.5), barring the sale or rental of defined “violent video games” to minors, requiring an “18” label, and imposing civil penalties.
- The statute defined covered games largely by allowing the player to “kill, maim, dismember, or sexually assault” a human image, and exempted games with “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
- Trade associations representing video game industry members filed a pre-enforcement action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The federal district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement, then granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the statute.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding violent video games are protected expression, the State failed to show a compelling interest, and the law was not narrowly tailored.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment permits restricting minors’ access to violent video games.
Issues
- Whether video games are protected speech under the First Amendment.
- Whether a state may treat depictions of violence as a new category of less-protected speech for minors.
- Whether California’s content-based restriction on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors survives strict scrutiny.
Decision
- The Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the statute and left the permanent injunction in place.
- The Court held video games are protected speech, like books, plays, and films.
- The Court applied strict scrutiny because the law regulated protected expression based on content.
- The Court rejected creating a new unprotected category for violent speech directed at minors and distinguished the adjustment of obscenity standards for minors.
- The Court concluded California did not carry its burden to show a compelling interest supported by adequate evidence and narrow tailoring.
- Concurrence (Alito, joined by Roberts): agreed the law was unconstitutional, emphasizing problems of drafting and caution in applying existing doctrine to new technology.
- Dissents (Thomas; Breyer): would have upheld the law on different theories, including historical parental control (Thomas) and sufficient evidence plus tailoring (Breyer).
Legal Principles
- Video games are expressive works entitled to full First Amendment protection.
- Content-based restrictions on protected speech are presumptively invalid and must satisfy strict scrutiny (compelling interest and narrow tailoring).
- Legislatures may not create new categories of unprotected speech by balancing a message’s value against its asserted harms; exceptions are limited to historically recognized categories.
- A claimed interest in protecting minors must be supported by evidence and pursued through means that are not substantially underinclusive or overinclusive.
- Regulations framed as assisting parents cannot broadly restrict minors’ speech rights where parents may choose differently and the law targets only one medium while leaving comparable content in others unregulated.
Conclusion
The Court held that California’s restriction on selling or renting defined “violent video games” to minors was an unconstitutional content-based regulation of protected expression because it attempted to expand unprotected speech categories and failed strict scrutiny.