미국에서의 폭력적 비디오 게임 규제입법에 대한 연방법원의 사법심사의 흐름
The History of Judicial Review of the U.S. Federal Courts on Violent Video Game Regulation Acts
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
As concerns on the side effect of violent video games have increased since the tragedy of Columbine massacre in 1999, each states have tried to establish regulations on minors’ use of violent video games. Although several states’legislation successfully passed regulatory acts which prohibited sales and rents of violent video games to minors, some associations of video game industry have brought these acts to federal courts which have authorities to review them by applying constitutional principles. The first judicial review case on a violent video game regulation act was American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, in which federal judge Richard Posner confirmed that video game is also a kind of expression and that a violent expression should be protected under the First Amendment, contrary to an obscene expression. Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County of 2003 also followed the reasoning of Kendrick case, and these early landmark decisions of the federal appeal courts changed judicial way of thinking on violent video games. Following these legislations and judicial decisions, various state legislatures made regulatory acts against violent video games. However, every trial has failed by the federal district courts which succeeded to the Kendrick case. This confirmation process by the federal district courts on Kendrick holding has continued almost for 10years. The consolidated holding of Kendrick was finally confirmed as a precedent by the Supreme Court last year. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Court concluded a normative debate on ongoing social issue, the harmfulness of violent video games on minors by holding that California’s regulation on violent video game is unconstitutional. This decision would be considered as a conclusion of a 10-year debate of federal district and appeal courts which have been led by some elite judges who acknowledged the value and importance of the freedom of expression in a democratic society.
Abstract
As concerns on the side effect of violent video games have increased since the tragedy of Columbine massacre in 1999, each states have tried to establish regulations on minors’ use of violent video games. Although several states’legislation successfully passed regulatory acts which prohibited sales and rents of violent video games to minors, some associations of video game industry have brought these acts to federal courts which have authorities to review them by applying constitutional principles. The first judicial review case on a violent video game regulation act was American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, in which federal judge Richard Posner confirmed that video game is also a kind of expression and that a violent expression should be protected under the First Amendment, contrary to an obscene expression. Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County of 2003 also followed the reasoning of Kendrick case, and these early landmark decisions of the federal appeal courts changed judicial way of thinking on violent video games. Following these legislations and judicial decisions, various state legislatures made regulatory acts against violent video games. However, every trial has failed by the federal district courts which succeeded to the Kendrick case. This confirmation process by the federal district courts on Kendrick holding has continued almost for 10years. The consolidated holding of Kendrick was finally confirmed as a precedent by the Supreme Court last year. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Court concluded a normative debate on ongoing social issue, the harmfulness of violent video games on minors by holding that California’s regulation on violent video game is unconstitutional. This decision would be considered as a conclusion of a 10-year debate of federal district and appeal courts which have been led by some elite judges who acknowledged the value and importance of the freedom of expression in a democratic society.
참고문헌 (32)
- 박민, "게임법제도의 현황과 과제" (2009), 박영사
- 전종수, "게임중독과 셧다운제" (2012), 커뮤니케이션북스
- Anderson, C. A., "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior : A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature", Psychological Science, 12 (2001)
- Art Golab, "Violent Video Games Under Fire", Chi. Sun-Times, ~ (2000)
- B. Drummond Ayres, Jr., "Democrats Gain Control of 2 Large Cities", N. Y. Times, ~ (1999)
- Beatrice M. Hahn, "The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: Schwarzenegger V. Entertainment Merchants Association", Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar, 6, pp.111~ (2011)
- Clay Calvert, "Media Bashing at the Turn of the Century: The Threat to Free Speech After Columbine High and Jenny Jones", L. Rev. Mich. St. U.-Detroit C.L, 151 (2000)
- Clay Calvert, "Violence, Video Games, And A Voice Of Reason: Judge Posner To The Defense Of Kids’ Culture And The First Amendment", San Diego L. Rev, 39, pp.1~3 (2002)
- David G. Post, "Sex, Lies, And Videogames: Brown V. Entertainment Merchants Association", Cato Sup. Ct. Rev, 27 (2011)
- Fritz, Ben, "Lawmaker defends law banning sale of violent video games to minors", Los Angeles Times, ~ (2010)
- Gentile, D. A., "Violent video games: The newest media violence hazard, In Media violence and children" (2003), Praeger Publishing
- Lawrence Kutner, "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games" (2008), Simon & Schuster
- Lillian Bensely, "Video Games and Real Life Aggression", Journal of Adolescent Health, 29 (2001)
- Lorraine M. Buerger, "The Safe Games Illinois Act: Can Curbs On Violent Video Games Survive Con-Stitutional Challenges?", Loy. U. Chi. L.J, 37, pp.617~ (2006)
- Mark Griffiths, "Video Games and Health", British Medical Journal, 331 (2005)
- Thomas Henry Rousse, "Electronic Games And The First Amendment: Free Speech Protection For New Media In The 21st Century", Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review, IV(1) (2011)
- "Am. Amusement Mach. Association v. Kendrick, 115 F. Supp. 2d943 (S.D. Ind. 2000)", ~ (2000)
- "American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d572, 573", ~ (2001)
- "Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U. S. ____,12", ~ (2011)
- "Entertainment Merchants Association v. Henry, 2006 WL 2927884", ~ (2007)
- "Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp.2d 1051", ~ (2005)
- "ESA, et al., v. Foti, et al", ~ (2006)
- "Entertainment Software Association v. Granholm, 426 F Supp 2d646", ~ (2006)
- "ESA, et al., v. Hatch, et al", ~ (2006)
- "Entertainment Software Association v. Swanson, 519 F.3d 768", ~ (2006)
- "Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629", ~ (1968)
- "Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128", ~ (2002)
- "Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, 329 F. 3d 954", ~ (2003)
- "Malden Amusement Co. v. City of Malden, 582 F. Supp. 297, 299", ~ (1983)
- "Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15", ~ (1973)
- "Video Software Dealers Association. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, No. C-05-04188 RMW", ~ (2007)
- "Video Software Dealers Association v. Maleng, 325 F. Supp. 2d1180", ~ (2004)