By: Jonathan M. Proman
This note argues that the accountability of media corporations
for the violent content of their child-entertainment products is a
matter ripe for legislative or Supreme Court review, and examines
the circumstances under which these corporations may be civilly
liable for the violent content of their youth-oriented
products. Specifically, it examines negligence suits and
First Amendment protections as well as exploring whether the
expansion of the law—such as a presumption of a causal link between
media violence and aggressive behavior in children—is
necessary. It also looks at whether the health and safety of
children is a compelling interest that mitigates First Amendment
protections and considers whether retaining current law is
preferable absent scientific proof that media violence leads to
aggressive behavior in children.
Despite increasing concern over the effects of media violence on
child consumers, courts have almost foreclosed the possibility of
media company liability for the violent content of their
child-entertainment products. Inconsistent with Supreme Court
precedent, judges generally refuse to permit juries to hear
cause-in-fact issues in media violence suits. Similarly,
courts in media violence suits have applied a First Amendment
jurisprudence that is tangential to mainstream judicial thinking
and graciously overprotective of the media industry.
Ultimately, the federal government must choose whether to permit
the status quo to continue unabated or to adopt judicial
endorsement of a culture that rejects violence and cherishes the
health and safety of children. This note urges the government
to choose the latter.
Full text version available for download
in PDF format.