ncac letter to gov. christie 2013

Upload: ncacensorship

Post on 03-Apr-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/28/2019 NCAC Letter to Gov. Christie 2013

    1/2

    July 8, 2013

    The Honorable Chris Christie

    Governor of New Jersey

    PO Box 001

    Trenton, NJ 08625

    Re: Senate Bill 2715

    Dear Governor Christie:

    On June 24th the New Jersey Legislature approved Senate Bill 2715, which would

    force the Department of Education to expend time and resources to collect, update

    and disseminate selective scientiic information about the purported effects of

    certain kinds of media and entertainment that students consume off school

    property. While well-intentioned, the bill is deeply misguided, and we strongly

    urge you to veto it.

    The bill would compel the New Jersey Department of Education to prepare, make

    available online, and physically distribute information on the allegedly negative

    effects of childrens exposure to media violence. Among other things theDepartment is directed to maintain continuously updated materials, including

    research and statistics on how violent behavior increases after exposure to

    violent ilm, music, television, or video games, and scientiic indings that show

    children who play violent video games are more likely to be involved in physical

    altercations with classmates, perform poorly on academic tasks, and are unable to

    relate to adults in positions of authority.

    The bill poses both practical and constitutional problems. The most glaring

    problem is that the bill is based on factual assumptions that the United States

    Supreme Court has explicitly rejected: that exposure to media violence causes

    violent behavior and that children who consume violent media become aggressiveor anti-social.

    Indeed, the Supreme Court concluded that studies purporting to show a

    relationship between exposure to violent media and violent or anti-social behavior

    have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They

    do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively. To the

    extent the studies show any effect on childrens feelings of aggression, those

    effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.

    Indeed, as the Court noted, the evidence demonstrates similar effects from

    watching Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons. Brown v. Entmt Merchants Assn,

  • 7/28/2019 NCAC Letter to Gov. Christie 2013

    2/2

    131 S. Ct. 2729, 2739-40 (2011). Thus, were the Department to comply with the requirements

    imposed by the bill, it would actually misinform parents by failing to disclose that the facts

    asserted by the state education department have actually been rejected by the countrys highest

    court.

    As a practical matter, the bill would place an impossible burden on state educators, by requiring

    them to keep fully informed about all research about media effects, which would be a relativelyuseless undertaking unless they were also able to distinguish accurate, valid and reliable research

    from research that is methodologically lawed and misleading, invalid or inaccurate. However, the

    bill is plainly not concerned with disseminating accurate information: its obvious purpose is to

    condemn a form of protected expression and propagate the view that it is harmful.

    In this respect, the bill raises serious constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has clearly

    held that violent images in art and entertainment are fully entitled to First Amendment

    protection. See Brown, 131 S. Ct. at 2733; United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010). By

    targeting constitutionally protected images of violence for oficial state condemnation, the bill

    engages in a form of prohibited viewpoint discrimination, enshrining as a matter of government

    policy speciic opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art andliterature. United States v. Playboy Entmt Group, 529 U.S. 803, 818 (2000) . However, [w]hat the

    Constitution says is that these judgments are for the individual to make, not for the government

    to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority. Id.

    We strongly urge you to reject this lawed and constitutionally-suspect approach and instead

    focus scarce state resources and attention on initiatives that are more likely to promote effective

    violence-prevention strategies.

    Sincerely,

    Joan Bertin

    Executive Director

    National Coalition

    Against Censorship

    19 Fulton Street, Suite 407

    New York, NY 10038

    (212) 807-6222 xt 101

    [email protected]

    Chris Finan

    President

    American Booksellers

    Foundation

    for Free Expression

    19 Fulton Street, Suite 407

    New York, NY 10038

    (212) 587-4025 ext. 4

    [email protected]

    Emma Llanso

    Center for Democracy

    and Technology

    1634 I Street, NW

    Suite 1100

    Washington, DC 20006

    [email protected]