The case is Entertainment Merchants Association v. Brown, and it's here. I'll summarize briefly.
The decision was 7-2. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said the California law is an unconstitutional content-based regulation of protected First Amendment speech, as California has neither identified a compelling government objective and has not narrowly tailored its law to that objective. Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor joined this opinion.
Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that the law was invalid but disagreeing that keeping violent video games from minors was not a compelling government interest. Alito would have considered the possibility that a more narrowly written law would be constitutional. The Chief Justice joined this opinion.
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the speech at issue is not protected First Amendment speech because the First Amendment was not historically understood to provide an unqualified right to speak to minors without going through their parents.
Justice Breyer dissented separately, arguing that while violent video games are protected speech, California had in fact identified a compelling state interest and written a law narrowly tailored to protecting that interest.
The decision was 7-2. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said the California law is an unconstitutional content-based regulation of protected First Amendment speech, as California has neither identified a compelling government objective and has not narrowly tailored its law to that objective. Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor joined this opinion.
Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that the law was invalid but disagreeing that keeping violent video games from minors was not a compelling government interest. Alito would have considered the possibility that a more narrowly written law would be constitutional. The Chief Justice joined this opinion.
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the speech at issue is not protected First Amendment speech because the First Amendment was not historically understood to provide an unqualified right to speak to minors without going through their parents.
Justice Breyer dissented separately, arguing that while violent video games are protected speech, California had in fact identified a compelling state interest and written a law narrowly tailored to protecting that interest.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
