본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

ENTERTAINING DOUBTS:BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION’S STABILITY AS PRECEDENT

유희승|Kang, Lydia
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2012.06|법학논집|제16권 제4호|pp. 245-298|DOI http://dx.doi.org/

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

cost-benefit analysisobscenity음란물compelling interestEntertainment Software Rating Board합리성 심사strict scrutiny reviewrational basis reviewlow-value speechMiller testnarrowly tailored엄격한 심사보호가치가 낮은 표현밀러 테스트비교이익형량 분석필수불가결한 공익최소한의 규제오락물 소프트웨어 등급 위원회

초록

Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association marked the first time the Supreme Court decided a video game case. Striking down a California statute that bans the sale or rental of violent video games to children, the Court made it clear that violent content, even if the intended audience is children, does not lie outside First Amendment protection. Moreover, the Court declared that video games were no different in kind than other forms of media such as books and movies. This Article argues that while Brown initially appears to be a triumphant and complete victory for the video game industry, its stability as precedent is not certain. Weaknesses in the majority’s reasoning, as well as inevitable advances in the technological sophistication of games and the development of empirical evidence (on the relationship between violent games and harm to children) all pose risks to the lasting hold of Brown. In light of these factors, the video game industry should consider taking steps to strengthen their self-regulatory framework.

Abstract

Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association marked the first time the Supreme Court decided a video game case. Striking down a California statute that bans the sale or rental of violent video games to children, the Court made it clear that violent content, even if the intended audience is children, does not lie outside First Amendment protection. Moreover, the Court declared that video games were no different in kind than other forms of media such as books and movies. This Article argues that while Brown initially appears to be a triumphant and complete victory for the video game industry, its stability as precedent is not certain. Weaknesses in the majority’s reasoning, as well as inevitable advances in the technological sophistication of games and the development of empirical evidence (on the relationship between violent games and harm to children) all pose risks to the lasting hold of Brown. In light of these factors, the video game industry should consider taking steps to strengthen their self-regulatory framework.

참고문헌 (68)

  1. "Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Circuit 1995)", ~ (1995)
  2. "Am. Amusement Mach. Ass’n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  3. "Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771", ~ (2002)
  4. "Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729", ~ (2011)
  5. "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031", ~ (1942)
  6. "City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440", ~ (1985)
  7. "Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 404 F.Supp.2d 1051 (N.D.Ill.2005)", ~ (2005)
  8. "Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm, 426 F.Supp.2d 646 (E.D.Mich.2006)", ~ (2006)
  9. "Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448", ~ (1980)
  10. "Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629", ~ (1968)
  11. "Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419", ~ (1973)
  12. "New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747", ~ (1982)
  13. "Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510", ~ (1925)
  14. "Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844", ~ (1997)
  15. "Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551", ~ (2005)
  16. "Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476", ~ (1957)
  17. "Sable Comm’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115", ~ (1989)
  18. "United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577", ~ (2010)
  19. "CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1746-1746.5 (West 2006)", ~ (2006)
  20. Adam B. Wolf, "FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED: TRADITION AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS", U. Miami L. Rev, 101 (2002)
  21. Andy Schlafly, "Opposing View: Violent videos warp young minds", USA Today, ~ (2011)
  22. Brooks Barnes, "Hunger Games", Ticket Sales Set Record, The N. Y. Times, ~ (2012)
  23. Christopher Clements, "Note, PROTECTING PROTECTED SPEECH: VIOLENT VIDEO GAME LEGISLATION POST-BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASS’N", B.C. L. Rev, 53, pp.661~ (2012)
  24. Craig A. Anderson, "Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States", PEDIATRICS, 122, pp.1067~ (2008)
  25. Deana Pollard Sacks, "DO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES HARM CHILDREN? COMPARING THE SCIENTIFIC AMICUS CURIAE “EX-PERTS” IN BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION", Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy (2011)
  26. Eric T. Gerson, "VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE FUTURE", Brook. L. Rev, 76, pp.1121~ (2011)
  27. Jennifer Chang, "Rated M for Mature: Violent Video Game Legislation and the Obscenity Standard", ST. JOHN’S J. LEGAL COMMENT, 24, pp.697~ (2010)
  28. Jodi L. Whitaker, "A Review of the Effects of Violent Video Games on Children and Adolescents", WASH. & LEE L. REV, 66, pp.1033~ (2009)
  29. Jon Robinson, "FROM PONG TO PORN: CONSIDERING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES, AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS", Loy. L. Rev, 52, pp.409~ (2006)
  30. Kevin W. Saunders, "MEDIA VIOLENCE AND THE OBSCENITY EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT", Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J, 3, pp.107~ (1994)
  31. Laura Black, "VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE ANSWER, OR IS IT? CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CALIFORNIA’S VIOLENT VIDEO GAME REGULATION", J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L, 5, pp.87~ (2011)
  32. Meredith L. Shafer, "PERPLEXING PRECEDENT: UNITED STATES V. STEVENS CONFOUNDS A CENTURY OF SUPREME COURT CONVENTIONALISM AND REDEFINES THE LIMITS OF “ENTERTAINMENT", Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J, 19, pp.281~ (2012)
  33. Patrick M. Garry, "Defining Speech in an Entertainment Age: The Case of First Amendment Protection for Video Games", SMU L. REV, 57, pp.139~ (2004)
  34. Robert Bryan Norris, Jr, "IT’S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL SOMEONE GETS HURT: BROWN v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE PROBLEM OF INTERACTIVITY", N.C. J.L. & Tech. On, 3, pp.81~ (2011)
  35. Alan E. Garfield, "Reasoning-Lite in the Violent Video Game Case", Wake Forest Law Review Online, 1, pp.124~ (2011)
  36. "Hunger Games Producer Says “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay” will be PG-13, explains why" (2012)[URL]
  37. "Consumer Research, ENTM’T SOFTWARE RATING BD"[URL]
  38. "DAILY MEDIA USE AMONG CHILDREN AND TEENS UP DRAMATICALLY FROM FIVE YEARS AGO" (2010)[URL]
  39. David G., "Post, Sex, Lies, and Videogames: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association", Cato Supreme Court Review, 27 (2011)
  40. "Entertainment Software Association website"[URL]
  41. "Supreme Court: ‘Video Games Qualify for First Amendment Protection’" (2011)[URL]
  42. "FTC Undercover Shopper Survey on Enforcement of Entertainment Ratings Finds Compliance Worst for Retailers of Music Cds and the Highest Among Video Game Sellers" (2011)[URL]
  43. "Fed. Trade Comm’n, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Fourth Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture" (2004)[URL]
  44. "Fed. Trade Comm’n, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Sixth Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture" (2009)[URL]
  45. "Supreme Court: California can’t ban violent video game sales, court says" (2011)[URL]
  46. "Games Industry Reacts to Supreme Court Decision" (2011)[URL]
  47. "A Supreme Court Scoreboard" (2011)[URL]
  48. "What Fans Will Love, and What they Might Not, In “Hunger Games”" (2012)[URL]
  49. "Argument preview: Kids and Video Games" (2010)[URL]
  50. "Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture" (2000)[URL]
  51. "Survey: 97 Percent Of Children Play Video Games" (2008)[URL]
  52. "Supreme Court Video Game Case Likely Decided This Week" (2011)[URL]
  53. "Most Middle-School Boys And Many Girls Play Violent Video Games" (2007)[URL]
  54. "NIMF Sees Madworld as Blemish on Nintendo’s Record" (2009)[URL]
  55. "Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?"[URL]
  59. "Rating Category Breakdown, ENTM’T SOFTWARE RATING BD"[URL]
  60. "Video Games Can Kill, ACCURACY IN MEDIA" (1999)[URL]
  61. "Keeping “The Hunger Games” Kid Stuff" (2012)[URL]
  62. "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: SCOTUS Strikes Down Law that Prohibits Sale or Rental of Violent Video Games to Minors" (2011)[URL]
  63. "Supreme Court Justice Kagan: Video Game Case Most Difficult" (2011)[URL]
  64. "Study: over 50% of Children under 8 use mobile devices for media consumption" (2011)[URL]
  65. "Violent Video Games Reduce Brain Response to Violence and Increase Aggressive Behavior, Study Suggests" (2011)[URL]
  66. "Violent Video Games Increase Aggression Long After the Game Is Turned Off, Study Finds" (2010)[URL]
  67. "Violent Video Games Lead to Brain Activity Characteristics of Aggression" (2008)[URL]
  68. "Violent Video Game Tax Defeated in Oklahoma Legislature" (2012)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

미국에서의 폭력적 비디오 게임 규제입법에 대한 연방법원의 사법심사의 흐름박종현법학연구원 · 법학논총2012 · 제36권 제1호Can Children Legally Be Protected from Violent Video Games? A Governmentally Based Market Solution - Get the Fox Out!Gloria J. Liddell, Joel E. Collier, Pearson Liddell, William D. Eshee법학연구원 · 법학논고2008 · 제28호폭력적 비디오 게임의 규제와 언론의 자유 ― 최근 미국 연방법원 판례 동향에 대한 헌법적 검토와 우리나라에서의 시사점 ―이상경서울시립대학교 법학연구소 · 서울법학2014 · 제21권 제3호미국 연방대법원의 표현의 자유에 대한 엄격심사의 문제점이명웅헌법재판소 · 헌법논총2012 · 제23권 엔터테인먼트분야의 새로운 법적 과제 -게임물, 퍼블리시티권 그리고 표현의 자유-미국의 판례가 주는 교훈들변지영한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 · 스포츠엔터테인먼트와 법2009 · 제12권 제2호미국의 청소년게임규제와 위헌성논의, 그리고 그 평가와 시사 - 캘리포니아주 ‘청소년폭력비디오게임금지법’을 중심으로 -박정훈사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2012 · 제61권 제8호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

Three Modes of Legislative Behavior in Taiwan and their Potential Impact on ChinaLiao, I-MING, 장새미pp. 1-36한국의 지역경제 활성화 관련법제의 발전- 지역발전정책과 관련하여 -강기홍pp. 37-70법개발학(Law and Development)의 관점에서 본 입법이론과 입법실무김대인pp. 71-94법개발학적 관점에서 본 소비자법의 지위와 역할- 경쟁법과의 관계를 중심으로 -신영수pp. 95-119법개발학의 관점에서 본 개발국가이용식pp. 121-133
원문 보기