Opposing Restrictions on Violent Content

  1. View this Page as a PDF

 

 

MEDIA COALITION and RESTRICTIONS ON VIOLENT CONTENT

  

Since the school shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, there has been a significant increase in state legislation that seeks to restrict material with violent content. A number of these laws have been enacted. Courts have blocked all of them on the grounds that material with violent content is protected by the First Amendment, but the issue is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Media Coalition has defended the dissemination of material with violent themes by either litigating or providing amicus support in the following areas:

• Schwarzenegger v. EMA (formerly VSDA v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2009) In April of 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this challenge to a California law restricting minors' access to certain violent video games and mandating that such games carry an "18" label.

• ESA v. Swanson, 519 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2007) The Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that barred Minnesota from restricting minors from buying or renting video games with violent themes, enforcing the video game industry's rating systems or requiring retailers to post signs with the rating restrictions.

• ESA v. Blagojevich, 469 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006) The Seventh Circuit found a ban on video games with violent (or some sexual) content was unconstitutional. They also enjoined the requirement that video games carry an "18" label.

• ABFFE v. Petro, 233 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ohio, W. Div. 2002), previously Bookfriends v. Taft, 223 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ohio 2002)  U.S. District Court Judge Rice barred enforcement of a statute that defined "harmful to juveniles" material as including depictions or descriptions of violence.

• Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Maleng, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (W.D. Wash. 2004) The U.S. District Court enjoined a law that prohibited the rental or sale to a minor of video games containing depictions of violence against law enforcement officers.

• AAMA et al. v. Kendrick et al., 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001) The Seventh Circuit sent the case back to the trial court to block enforcement of an Indianapolis ordinance that barred the display and operation of arcade games with violent or sexual content. The definition of "harmful to minors" in the city's general ordinance had also been broadened to include material that depicts violence.

 

Much of this legislation stems from claims that exposure to violent content in media causes actual violence. Media Coalition has worked to counter these assertions by publishing Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won't Stop Violence, which surveys social science research in this area. Media Coalition also facilitated an amicus brief filed by social scientists in AAMA et al. v. Kendrick et al. and IDSA v. St. Louis County that addressed "media effects" research that claims to show a link between media with violent content and actual violence.