Brown v. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association)

​​EMA:
​Summary/Analysis
The EMA’s mission is to advance the interests of the entertainment industry. When the law (Civil Code 1746-1746.5) was proposed and signed by Leland Yee and Arnold Schwarznegger respectively, they saw it as an infringement on their rights. More specifically, the rights of the entertainment industry. They pleaded that the law was unconstitutional and sued the state of California. The EMA believes that what the ESRB does currently is effective enough. The whole idea of the ESRB is to warn consumers of the content of their purchases. Since the law prohibits minors in obtaining violent video games (implying M-rated games), this negates the purpose of the ESRB. Since 17 year olds are eligible to buy M-rated video games, the law would not let that happen since being 17 years old is still considered to be a minor. Retailers even enforce the rating systems educate consumers on which video games are suitable for what age. The EMA believes that the government doesn’t need to tell the people what is “wrong” and what is “right”. They also do not believe that the government has the right to infringe upon the people’s individual rights (First and Fourteenth Amendment).

​Brown:
​Summary/Analysis
Before it was “Brown v. EMA”, it was “Schawrznegger v. EMA”. In 2005, Leland Yee proposed a law that prohibited the sale or rental of violent games (M-rated games) to minors. This was done in the name of “protecting the children”. After being proposed, Arnold Schawrznegger (then governor of California) jumped on to sign the act. The contributing factor in this was the substantial amount of research and testing that resulted in violent video games having, indeed, an effect on minors. They presented the court with, obviously, violent video games depicting killing and maiming. They also offered evidence that violent video games have a link to psychological issues and violent behavior among minors. Since Leland Yee used to be a Child Psychologist, it is no surprise that the law focused on children. If the law were to be in effect, it would require video game manufacturers and distributors to label their products with a sticker showing the number “18”.

​Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that video games were indeed under the protection of the First Amendment, like other forms of media.

​Dissenting Opinion Summary:
The one dissenting opinion of the ruling came from Justice Breyer. He stated that in today’s time parents have to deal with very busy schedules. This in turn, restricts them from constantly monitoring their children. With the lack of monitoring, children are able to freely purchase violent video games.

​Majority Decision Summary:
A majority of five justices found that the law did in fact, violate the First Amendment of freedom of expression. It was said that minors, like adults, have First Amendment rights (although not as expansive). The fact that the law specifically targeted video games and no other forms of media (books, movies, etc.), the law was considered “wildly underinclusive”. Another reason why it was considered “underinclusive” was the fact that adults were still able to purchase these “dangerous” video games for minors. At the end of the day, the parents make the decisions. Plus, the ESRB provides an (already) effective alternative to the law.

​Commentary:
As someone who is very interested in video games, it is hard to not be biased while analyzing this case. Although, I did try to treat each side of the argument with the same amount of understanding. But at the end of the day, I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling and the reasoning behind said ruling. The government shouldn’t start policing every single thing we do. We don’t need them to tell us what is “right” and what is “wrong”, especially with my purchases. The law is an unnecessary extreme alternative to the ESRB. I know that the ESRB is effective from personal experience. Retailers are not allowed to sell M-rated games to minors since there will be repercussions for doing so. The fact that the law specifically targeted video games makes it seem like a joke. What about movies? There are plenty of films that depict far more violent and gruesome acts than video games. I think that this shows that Leland Yee has a personal grudge when it comes to video games.