No. 08-1448IN THESupreme Court of the United States————ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, In His Official Capacityas Governor of the State of California, andEDMUND G. BROWN JR., In His Official Capacity asAttorney General of the State of California,Petitioners,v.VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION ANDENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION,Respondents.————On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit————BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OF CALIFORNIASTATE SENATOR LELAND Y. YEE, Ph.D,THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OFTHE AMERICAN ACADEMY OFPEDIATRICS, AND THE CALIFORNIAPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS————STEVEN F. GRUELCounsel of Record315 Montgomery Street9th FloorSan Francisco, California 94104(415) [email protected] 19, 2010Counsel for Amicus CuriaeWILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
QUESTIONS PRESENTEDCalifornia Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibitthe sale of violent video games to minors under 18where a reasonable person would find that theviolent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailingcommunity standards as to what is suitable forminors, and causes the games as whole to lackserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific valuefor minors. The respondent industry groups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating theFree Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Thecourt of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of theprohibition.The questions presented are:1. Does the First Amendment bar a state fromrestricting the sale and rental of violent videogames to minors?2. If the First Amendment applies to violent videogames that are sold to minors, and the standard ofreview is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666(1994), is the state required to demonstrate adirect causal link between violent video gamesand physical and psychological harm to minorsbefore the state can prohibit the sale of the gamesto minors?(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTIONS PRESENTED.iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .vINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .3ARGUMENT .7I. THIS COURT HAS ACKNOWLEDGEDSOCIETY’S RATIONAL AND COMPELLING INTEREST IN DISTINGUISHING AND LIMITING THERIGHTS ENJOYED BY MINORS .7II. SCIENCE CONFIRMS THAT VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES ARE HARMFULTO MINORS ALLOWING THE STATECLEAR JUSTIFICATION IN REGULATING CHILDREN’S ACCESS TOTHESE MATERIALS .101. Overview Of Scientific ResearchConfirms Harmful Effects To MinorsFrom Violent Games .102. A Minor’s Exposure To Violent VideoGames – More Time Spent PlayingGames With Increasing ViolentGraphic Violence .133. Scientific Studies Confirm thatViolent Video Games Have HarmfulEffects on Minors .154. Recent Studies and ResearchersContinue to Find Harmful Effects ToMinors from Playing Violent VideoGames .24(iii)
ivTABLE OF CONTENTS—ContinuedPage5. The Shortcomings of Purported “Research” Contesting the ScientificStudies Showing the Harmful Effectsto Minors Playing Violent VideoGames .26CONCLUSION .27APPENDIX .1aStatement on Video Game Violence .1a
vTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESErznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S.205 (1975) .FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726(1978) .
games that are sold to minors, and the standard of . 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to dem