Entertainment Merchants Association and other plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and others challenging a state law that prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors as a violation of the First Amendment. The law applied to games that allowed a player to kill, maim, dismember, or sexually assault the image of a human being, thus rendering the game of no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to minors. The district ruled in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association and concluded that the law violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari review. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Does California state law, which would impose fines for the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18, violate the video game industry's First Amendment to free speech? The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association. In the case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that banning the sale of violent video games violated the video game industry's First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court ruled that California's law was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment. The Court held that video games are considered “speech,” similar to plays and films, and are therefore protected by the First Amendment. The Court also said that while the government has the power to restrict certain types of speech, such as obscenity, there is no history of regulating violent speech. Because this country has no history of treating violent speech differently, the Court did not want to create a new category of speech that was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court then considered California law. Because the law sought to limit the “speech” of video games based on their violent content, it could only be enforced if California demonstrated it had a very strong reason to pass it. The Court decided that California law failed this test. They said the connections between video games and aggressive behavior were not well proven and that there was no evidence that parents needed the state's help in limiting their children's access. The justices said the law does not appear to be designed to address California's concerns, as it only bans video games and not other violent media. They pointed out that the industry's age rating system already fulfills California's stated purpose of helping parents. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito agreed with the majority's judgment, but said a more limited law could be constitutional. They said the California law did not provide sufficient guidance to video game manufacturers and marketers in determining which games would be banned under state law. Because the law did not give merchants and manufacturers “fair notice” of which games would be banned, this law was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the justices emphasized that video games are a new form of media and the Court should not assume that playing violent video games is the same as reading a book or watching a movie. Since the effects of violent video games are not entirely certain, the Court may one day find that these media must be addressed.