ESA v. Minnesota (March 17, 2008 – 8th Cir Court of Appeals)
Click to hear Oral Arguments on Appeal (Feb 12, 2007)
Text of Appeal (Aug 29, 2006)
Permanent Injunction (July 31, 2006 – District Court)
Text of Complaint (June 6, 2006)
Text of Enjoined Bill (May 22, 2006)
In another of a long line of such U.S. First Amendment video game cases, The United States 8th Circuit upheld the July 2006 permanent injunction enjoining Minnesota from enforcing a law that would have: (i) imposed $25 fines on children under 17 who bought or rented video games rated M (Mature) or AO (Adults only); and (ii) required retailers to post signs informing consumers of the law. The appellate court’s reasoning was as follows:
- Video games are protected free speech (as per Interactive Digital Software Ass’n v St. Louis County, 329 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2003)).
- As such, video game rental/purchase restrictions imposed by law must pass the ‘strict scrutiny‘ test, namely the law must: (i) be necessary to serve a compelling state interest; and (ii) be narrowly tailored to achieve that end.
- The state argued that the compelling interest at stake was that of ‘safeguarding the psychological well being and moral and ethical development of minors’.
- While the interest may be compelling in the abstract, in order to prevail the state must provide real and empirical support for its belief that ‘violent’ video games cause such harm – not merely conjecture.
- The court agreed that Minnesota offered substantial evidence in support of its contention that video games cause such harm, but nonetheless ruled that the evidence fell short of the statistical certainty of causation required by the Interactive decision.
