About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

32 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 87 (2011-2012)
Blood, Brains, and Bludgeoning, but Not Breasts: An Analysis and Critique of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

handle is hein.journals/laent32 and id is 91 raw text is: BLOOD, BRAINS, AND BLUDGEONING, BUT NOT BREASTS: AN ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIA TION Margaret E. Jennings* In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass 'n, the Supreme Court held that a California statute banning the sale of extremely violent video games to minors was unconstitutional because it violated minors' First Amend- ment rights. This decision highlights the Court's inconsistent application of evidentiary standards required for States to regulate the sale of erotic (not obscene) content and the sale of violent content to children. In Brown, the Court stated that unless California could prove a causal link between violent video games and harmful effects on children, it could not regulate the sale of even the most violent of games. However, this holding contradicts Ginsberg v. New York, where the Court did not require the State to proffer any evidence that erotic material was harmful to minors and ruled that the Constitution did not prevent the State from regulating the sale of girlie magazines to them. Additionally, Brown represents a departure from the Court's standing precedents since it has never before allowed a vendor to assert the constitu- tional rights of children. In fact, the statute in Brown permitted parents to purchase any violent games for their children. Therefore, the Court al- lowed the vendor to assert this alleged right even contrary to the rights of parents. The Court ignored the deeply entrenched right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and instead recognized a minor's right to circumvent parental authority. The overall result, as Justice Breyer stated * i.D. Candidate, Loyola Law School, 2012; B.A., University of Iowa, 2008. The author would like to thank her family and friends for their support throughout the production of this article. She would also like to thank Loyola Law School professor Karl Manheim for his encouragement and invaluable expertise. Finally, the author would especially like to thank the Editorial Board and the rest of the editors and staff of the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review for their efforts in making this publication possible.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most