October Term 2010 · Docket 08-1448
Can California restrict violent video game sales to minors?
California seeks to ban selling violent games to children. The industry argues this violates free speech rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Smith argued the law restricts expressive works.
Mr. Smith stated California cannot meet First Amendment standards.
Mr. Morazzini argued the law targets specific violent games.
Mr. Morazzini admitted Postal 2 would be covered by the Act.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
California enacted a law restricting violent video game sales to minors. The state claims this protects children. The industry argues the law violates First Amendment rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 2, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 7-9
What each side wants
California wants to enforce the sales ban on violent games.
The industry wants the court to strike down the state law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
What each side says
California argues the law protects children from harmful content.
The industry argues the law restricts protected speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked why the law targets games but not movies.
Justice Scalia asked if the state would ban other violent media.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-11
Why it matters
This case defines state power to regulate violent media. It impacts how states protect minors. It shapes future free speech limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 17-33
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.