California enacts violent video game legislation
On October 7th Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 1179 into law, which was sponsored by AssemblymanLeland Yee and regulates the sale of violent video games to minors. See Schwarzenegger's press release and Yee's press release.
The new law is codified at Section 1746 of the California Civil Code.
It prohibits the selling or renting of a video game that has been labeled as a violent video game to a minor. Violators are subject to fines up to $1,000. Each violent video game that is distributed in California for retail sale must be labled with a prominent "18" label on the front of the packaging.
The new law contains the same legal formulations of ultraviolent video games as in Yee's earlier bill, AB 450, which is discussed here.
A "violent video game" is defined as one that involves killing, maiming, dismembering or sexual assault of an image of a human being if the game:
A) Comes within all of the following descriptions: (i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors. (ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors. (iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
OR:
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim.
The new law is being challenged by the Entertainment Software Association, as are similar laws recently enacted in Illinois and Michigan. See prior posts about the Illinois and Michigan laws. Similar bills are being considered in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington and the District of Columbia.
To survive First Amendment challenge, the new law must:
(i) serve a compelling state interest;
(2) be narrowly tailored to serve its intended purpose; and
(3) not be vague.
The law states that "the state has a compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and antisocial behavior, and in preventing pscyhological or neurological harm to minors who play violent video games." It remains to be seen whether the State will be able to present sufficient social science evidence to back this up.
However according to Kevin Saunders, Michigan State Constitutional Law professor, “Just this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons, the child death penalty case, that children are different in the eyes of the law due to brain development.”
Also, it remains to be seen whether the law will be found to be unconstitutionally vague. While the law has numerous carefully crafted definitions of what is "cruel", "depraved", "heinous", "serious physical abuse" or "torture", it is not clear whether these definitions are sufficiently precise to avoid chilling legitimate free speech. For example, the definition of "heinous" means "shockingly atrocious".
The new law will go into effect January 1, 2006 unless its opponents succeed in having it enjoined.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'California enacts violent video game legislation' from Silicon Valley Media Law Blog.
