Abstract
This Note examines the constitutional obstacles that a plaintiff will likely encounter in bringing a claim against a publisher of a violent video game for injuries caused by a player of such a game. This analysis assumes that a plaintiff has succeeded in proving the elements of a negligence cause of action. Since courts have consistently dismissed such cases on common law tort grounds, any additional analyses of the free speech issues in these cases could be considered dicta. Therefore, the First Amendment is a less established aspect of the adjudication of the tort liability of video game publishers.
Part II of this Note argues that video games should constitute "speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. Part III analyzes several exceptions to First Amendment protection and contends that they should not apply to video games. Part IV examines the policy implications of imposing tort liability on video game publishers for crimes committed by third parties. Finally, Part V proposes a regulatory scheme that would balance a state's interest in preventing youth violence with the free speech interests of video game publishers.
How to Cite
45 Ariz. L. Rev. 467 (2003)
7
Views
3
Downloads