SCOTUS: Schwarzenegger Lawyer Slugged by Judges

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's representative - a Mr. Morazzini - was given a tough time in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today. Mr Morazzini was facing questioning regarding the Californian goverment's request to have the sale of violent video games to minors banned.

The court documents reveal that he probably wanted to be elsewhere. You really should read the full document. However, for now read the opening exchanges (and look out for the Bugs Bunny reference).

Justice Scalia: What's a deviant -- a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?

Mr Morazzini: Yes, Your Honor. Deviant would be departing from established norms.

Justice Scalia: There are established norms of violence?

Mr Morazzini: Well, I think if we look back -­

Justice Scalia: Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth.

Mr Morazzini: Agreed, Your Honor. But the level of violence -­

Justice Scalia: Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?

Mr Morazzini: Not at all, Your Honor.

Justice Ginsburg: What's the difference? mean, if you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's fairy tales? Why are video games special? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?

Mr Morazzini: No, Your Honor. That's why I believe California incorporated the three prongs of the Miller standard. So it's not just deviant violence. 14 It's not just patently offensive violence. It's 15 violence that meets all three of the terms set forth in...

Chief Justice Roberts: I think that missed Justice Ginsburg's question, which is: Why just video games? Why not movies, for example, as well?

Mr Morazzini: Sure, Your Honor. The California legislature was presented with substantial 22 evidence that demonstrates that the interactive nature of violent -- of violent video games where the minor or 24 the young adult is the aggressor, is the -- is the individual acting out this -- this obscene level of violence, if you will, is especially harmful to minors. It...

Justice Kagan: Well, do you actually have studies that show that video games are more harmful to minors than movies are?

Mr Morazzini: Well, in the record, Your Honor, I believe it's the Gentile and Gentile study regarding violent video games as exemplary teachers. The authors there note that video games are not only exemplary teachers of pro-social activities, but also exemplary teachers of aggression, which was the fundamental concern of the California legislature in enacting this statute. So, while the science is continually developing, indeed, it appears that studies are being 16 released every month regarding...

Justice Kagan: Suppose a new study suggested that movies were just as violent. Then, presumably, California could regulate movies just as it could regulate video games?

Mr Morazzini: Well, Your Honor, there is scientific literature out there regarding the impact of violent media on children. In fact, for decades, the President, Congress, the FTC, parenting groups, have been uniquely concerned with the level of violent media available to minors that they have ready access to.

Justice Sotomayor: I don't think; is that answering Justice Kagan's question? One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?

Mr Morazzini: No...