The members of Media Coalition believe that California Assembly Bill 1956 violates First Amendment rights of retailers and individuals for numerous reasons. The members of The Media Coalition represent most of the publishers, booksellers, librarians, periodical distributors, recording, movie and video game manufacturers, and recording and video retailers in California and the rest of the United States.

A.B. 1956 would require every video arcade facility to post a sign that warns consumers about a claimed harm to minors from exposure to arcade games with violent content. The sign must also advocate the use of a video arcade rating system in determining what game to play. Each facility would also be required to make available brochures explaining the rating system. The rating system is defined as that system "created by the video arcade gaming industry." Failure to comply is a misdemeanor punishable by a $150 fine per violation.

The primary constitutional infirmity is that the posting requirement is clearly compelled speech. The government can not mandate that arcade owners take up the state endorsed position on the impact of arcade games on non-adult users. The First Amendment allows speakers not only the right to communicate freely but creates the complimentary right "to refrain from speaking at all," Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). See also, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) (government cannot require a private electric company to include environmentalists inserts in its monthly bills), Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (newspaper can not be compelled to provide space to politicians to respond to editorials).

Also, while voluntary ratings exist to help parents determine what is appropriate for their children, government may not mandate the adoption of an existing private rating system. Courts in nine different states have ruled it unconstitutional either to enforce the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system or financially punish a movie that carries specific rating designations. MPAA v. Specter, 315 F.Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1970), enjoined enforcement of Pennsylvania statute that penalized exhibitors showing movies unsuitable for family or children viewing, as determined by CARA ratings. In Eastern Federal Corporation v. Wasson, 316 S.E. 2d 373 (S.C. 1984), the court ruled that a tax of 20% on all admissions to view movies rated either "X" or unrated was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private trade association. See also, Swope v. Lubbers, 560 F.Supp.1328 (W.B. Mich, S.D. 1983) (use of M.P.A.A. ratings was improper as a criteria for determination of constitutional protection), Drive-In Theater v. Huskey, 435 F.2d 228 (4^th Cir. 1970) (sheriff enjoined from prosecuting exhibitors for obscenity based on "R" or "X" rating).

Further, while minors do not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment to the same extent as adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected material to them." Erznoznick v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 212-13 (1975). In the case of Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining whether material is legally "harmful to minors" and may, therefore, be banned for sale or rental to minors. Absent a judicial determination that a game is "harmful to minors," the government cannot require an arcade owner to pejoratively label certain games as potentially "psychologically harmful to minors." Arcade owners will inevitably lose patrons who, without being aware that the material referenced by the posted signs is protected by the First Amendment, will refuse to enter places or access games that have been deemed potentially harmful. Many retailers will refuse to have arcade games that could be construed as violent and allegedly harmful. As a result, A.B. 1956 would cause an unconstitutional "chilling effect" on the availability of constitutionally protected material and would inevitably prevent minors from using games they have a First Amendment right to access.

Finally, we challenge the claim that "due to the graphic display of virtual violence, extensive exposure to video arcade games may be psychologically harmful to children." While many newspaper headlines may have jumped to this conclusion, the research certainly does not support this statement. There is very little research on the impact of violence in video games and no research on the effect of violent content in video arcade games. We recently released a report, Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won’t Stop Violence that surveys the research on the effects of violent media on the consumer. We found that the research is contradictory and inconclusive. The report is available on our web site www.mediacoalition.org or by mail.

Passage of A.B. 1956 could prove costly. If a court declares it unconstitutional, there is a good possibility that the state will be ordered to pay the attorneys' fees of the parties who challenged the law. A recent case challenging a law directed at arcade games with violent content, A.A.M.A. v. Kendrick, cost Indianapolis more than $315,000 for plaintiff’s legal fees and another $400,000 to their own lawyers to defend the ordinance.