Obscenity, Indecency, Graphic Violence

Question 1

N. York regulation prohibiting selling obscene material to minors doesn’t invade the minors’ constitutionally protected freedoms; it simply adjusts the definition of obscenity to social realities. State has the power to adjust that definition b/c power of state to control children’s conduct extends beyond its authority over adults. State has two rational justifications for limiting material to minors (i) parents might not want them to have access to material and are entitled to laws to support them and (ii) obscenity might be harmful to minors.

Answer 1

Ginsberg v. New York

[SCOTUS]

Question 2

The governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials doesn’t justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults

Answer 2

Reno v. ACLU

[SCOTUS]

Question 3

Video games qualify for 1st Amend. protection - obscenity exception only covers nudity; not violence. So apply strict scrutiny - Cali has compelling interest in protecting children but there’s no causal connection between violent video games and violent behavior. Plus the law is under inclusive (what about other violent media) and over inclusive (some parents don’t care what their kids see)

Answer 3

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

[SCOTUS]