Jack sell these types of video games. The Supreme

Jack DroenPeriod 5HIstory 811-29-17Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association564 U.S. 786Docket No. 08-1448 The FactsThe case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 2, 2010, and was decided June 7, 2011. (Oyez, n.d) The case was started because the former-California senator, Leland Yee, and the California state legislature placed a ban, law AB 1179, on the selling of mature video games to minors in California in 2005. (Brown v. EMA, Wikipedia, n.d)  The games were seen as becoming more violent and could be a bad influence on minors. The bill was signed in October 2005 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The law came into effect in 2006.  (Brown v. EMA, Wikipedia, n.d) Schwarzenegger appealed to the ruling in September of 2007 and said that he would defend the law and that he and the people of California have the responsibility to protect their children from these types of games. The Ninth Circuit considered the law to decide if it was constitutional. The case finally reached the Supreme Court on November 2, 2010. (Oyez, n.d)The LawThe Supreme Court case addresses the 1st Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. Amend. I)The 1st Amendment states that people have the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. The companies and the retailers have the right to sell these types of video games. The Supreme Court answers the question, “Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?” (Oyez, n.d) This asks if the states have the right, of the freedom of speech, to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors.ArgumentsThe appellant in this case is the EMA and they argued that the right to selling of mature video games to minors is protected under the 1st Amendment. (Oyez, Oral argument – November 2, 2011) However, the respondent is Gov. Edmund Brown, where he defends the law. He defends that they should not have the right to have “deviant” or “obscene” games to be sold to minors, as it might influence violent behavior. (Oyez, Oral argument – November 2, 2011)Opinion of the CourtThe court issued a 7-2 opinion and was authorized by Justice Antonin Scalia. (Oyez, n.d) He believed that the law violated the 1st Amendment and was unconstitutional, and that it should be abolished. Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts also agreed with the opinion. (Oyez, n.d) Justice Alito authored a concurrence stating that he was unsure about the connection between violent video games and the effect it has on children. He quoted from the book, Infinite Reality, which states, “There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show…” (Bailenson and Blascovich, 2011) His concurrence was joined by Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented and wrote different dissents. Justice Thomas’s dissent says that at the time of the writing of the amendment, it does not include a right to speak to minors. (Brown v. EMA, Wikipedia, n.d) Justice Breyer took a different approach for his dissent, stating, “California law imposes more but a modest restriction on expression…” (McCullagh, 2011) Outcome of the CaseThe final decision was made after a 7-2 vote between the Justices. (Oyez, n.d) The outcome of the case reflected the opinion of the majority, which was that the selling of violent video games was protected under the 1st Amendment, and that law AB 1179 would be abolished. (Oyez, 2011)Response to Court OpinionThe majority of people that participated in the poll, created by the Fairleigh Dickinson University, stated that 57% of voters say states should have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to minors, but by contrast, 39% say those types of decisions about what video games can be purchased should be left up to parents. Most of the voters were men. Adolescents and professional gamers that play these types of video games are able to have access to purchase these games. (U.S. Public Says Regulate Violent Video Games, the Focus of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants, 2011) According to the same poll, conservative parents seemed to vote that they should regulate the sell of violent games. Through ages 30-60, 174 participates voted to regulate. The minors of California, and the other minors that have participated in the pool, 46 people have voted to leave it up to parents. (U.S. Public Says Regulate Violent Video Games, the Focus of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants, 2011)Impact on Decisions, Citizens, and LawsThere has been a lasting impact because of this case. It allows the minors of California to purchase and have violent video games. (Oyez, n.d) Some Supreme cases that relate to Brown v. EMA are Texas v. Johnson, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, and etc. These relate to the 1st Amendment. Texas v. Johnson deals with Johnson burning the American flag, but he was protected under the 1st Amendment. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier deals with the freedom of speech in public schools. (Texas v. Johnson and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, Wikipedia, n.d) Both cases have to deal with the 1st Amendment, which includes the freedom of speech. The EMA has the right to determine what is deemed “appropriate” to sell, which is protected under the freedom of speech.The Decision TodayThe decision from the case still stands today, however with a change. The minors of California may have mature games, but only with the purchase and consent of a parent. No case has changed the decision today because no other case has covered the topic of violent video games. However, the topic of net neutrality has the same issue. Net neutrality is the idea that internet providers must treat all data as the same. However, there are some organizations, like the FCC, that plan to eradicate it. It promotes the idea of the freedom of speech. However, on December 14, 2017, the plan to destroy net neutrality was voted a 3-2 opinion from a FCC party line. (Vox, 2017)Personal OpinionMy friends and I play violent games almost daily, and in my opinion, I think that the opinion made by the court was a great decision and greatly impacts how I live today. It allows the companies and the stores to put of these products for people like me to consume.  The opinion of the court is important to me because it positively impacts what my hobby is. I play games violent games almost everyday and with my friends. It helps me relieve stress after a long day and it’s a great outlet. I agree with the decision because the court protected my 1st Amendment. The first amendment allows the companies to decide what they consider to be acceptable to release to stores and markets because of the freedom of speech.Impact On My LifeThe impact on my life is that it lets me buy the games that I want. Most of the games that I play daily mostly consist of violent games, such as Tom Clancy’s Rainbow 6 Siege (Ubisoft, 2015), Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar, 2015), Call of Duty (Activision, 2001-2017), and more. I play those games with my friends on Xbox, and because of the outcome of the case, I get to purchase the games I want to play with my friends. A 13 year old like me also probably plays the same games as me, and thanks to the opinion of the court, they can. In the future, I’m sure that I will continue to play these types of games and take them with me, wherever I go. References Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 6,   2017, from gvghhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/08-1448McCullagh, D. (2011, June 27). Supreme Court nixes violent video game lawRetrieved December 06, 2017, from https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-nixes-violent-video-game-law/Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n. (2017, December 04). Retrieved December 06, 2017, from   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n#Alito’s concurrenceU.S. Public Says Regulate Violent Video Games, the Focus of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants. (2011, June 06). Retrieved December 06, 2017, from http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/vmerchants/Romano, A. (2017, December 14). Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained