Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Apr;86(4):315-21. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0762.
On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, with a ruling expected in 2011. This case addressed whether states have the right to restrict freedom of speech by limiting the sale of violent video games to minors. To date, 8 states have tried to pass legislation to this effect, with all attempts being found unconstitutional by lower courts. In large part, the Supreme Court's decision will be determined by its review and interpretation of the medical and social science literature addressing the effects of violent video games on children. Those on both sides of the violent video game debate claim that the scientific literature supports their opinions. Some involved in the debate have proclaimed that the debate is scientifically settled and that only people holding personal interests and biases oppose these "established truths." We review the historical similarities found in the 1950s comic book debate and studies identified from a PubMed search of the term violent video games showing both the harmful and beneficial effects of these video games. We define factors that physicians need to consider when reading and stating opinions about this literature. Opinions from past court rulings are discussed to provide insight into how judges may approach the application of these social science studies to the current legal issue. Although on the surface the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association pertains only to the restriction of violent video games, it may establish principles about how medical and public health testimony can affect fundamental constitutional rights and how much and on what basis the courts will defer to legislators' reliance on unsettled science.
2010 年 11 月 2 日，美国最高法院审理了 Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association 一案，预计将于 2011 年做出裁决。此案涉及各州是否有权通过限制向未成年人出售暴力视频游戏来限制言论自由。迄今为止，已有 8 个州试图通过相关立法，所有这些尝试都被下级法院判定为违宪。在很大程度上，最高法院的决定将取决于其对涉及暴力视频游戏对儿童影响的医学和社会科学文献的审查和解释。暴力视频游戏辩论的双方都声称，科学文献支持他们的观点。一些参与辩论的人宣称，这场辩论在科学上已经有定论，只有那些持有个人利益和偏见的人才会反对这些“既定事实”。我们回顾了 20 世纪 50 年代漫画书辩论中发现的历史相似之处，以及从 PubMed 搜索术语“暴力视频游戏”中确定的研究，这些研究显示了这些视频游戏既有有害影响，也有有益影响。我们定义了医生在阅读和陈述有关该文献的意见时需要考虑的因素。讨论了过去法庭裁决的意见，以深入了解法官如何将这些社会科学研究应用于当前的法律问题。尽管表面上看，Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association 一案仅涉及限制暴力视频游戏，但它可能确立了一些原则，即医学和公共卫生证言如何影响基本宪法权利，以及法院在多大程度上以及基于何种基础尊重立法者对未解决科学的依赖。
