As many gamers are aware, the Supreme Court of the United States will start hearing oral arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Associations/Entertainment Software Association on November 2. At issue is the constitutionality of a 2005 law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.
The EMA and ESA appealed the law after it was signed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which eventually led to a permanent injunction being issued to block the law from taking effect. The state of California then challenged the injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in late 2007, and in 2009, the court ruled the law was unconstitutional, prompting Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to take the case to the Supreme Court.
In part one of our five-part feature on the upcoming Supreme Court case, we will examine the contents of Assembly Bill No. 1179, aka the Act, to see, not only how it defined violent video games, but what it proposed be done to keep them out of the hands of minors.
The bill in question was drawn up by then California Assemblyman, and now Democratic State Senator, Leland Yee. Yee has been a longtime opponent of violence in media, especially video games, and made a name for himself by sparking the now infamous “Hot Coffee” incident involving a hidden sex mini-game in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
As you'd expect, Yee submitted an amicus curiae brief (read: a brief filed arguing for a party involved in a case) in support of California in its upcoming Supreme Court case. In his brief, Yee made it quite clear that his position on and perception of video games hasn’t changed:
“These violent video games…can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery.”
Understanding where Yee is coming from is helpful when looking at the Act at the center of this whole debate. As stated in Assembly Bill No. 1179, the proposed legislation “would require violent video games to be labeled…and would prohibit the sale or rental of those violent video games, as defined, to minors. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act shall be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation.”
The classification of “violent video game” causes quite a few problems when you try to determine which games it should apply to and which ones it should not. However, to California, a “violent video game” is defined as one in which “the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”
There are three additional elements that factor into this definition of violent video games, and these elements become especially important when it comes to arguments relating to how the First Amendment applies to video games as a whole. When California is talking about violence being depicted in video games, it is judging it based on whether:
A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
The Act goes on to define video game violence as that which, “Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim.”
Unsurprisingly, the Act further describes terms like “heinous” and “depraved” as portrayals of violence that “involve additional acts of torture or serious physical abuse of the victim as set apart from other killings” and that demonstrate that the player “relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim,” respectively. The other definitions laid out in the Act are as follows:
“Cruel” - The player intends to virtually inflict a high degree of pain by torture or serious physical abuse of the victim in addition to killing the victim.
“Serious physical abuse” - A significant or considerable amount of injury or damage to the victim’s body which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, substantial disfigurement, or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Serious physical abuse, unlike torture, does not require that the victim be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted. However, the player must specifically intend the abuse apart from the killing.
“Torture” - Mental as well as physical abuse of the victim. In either case, the virtual victim must be conscious of the abuse at the time it is inflicted; and the player must specifically intend to virtually inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering upon the victim, apart from killing the victim.
When taken as a whole, these specifications are designed to differentiate between simple virtual killing and that which includes “infliction of gratuitous violence upon the victim beyond that necessary to commit the killing, needless mutilation of the victim’s body, and helplessness of the victim.”
From there, the Act goes on to propose that it would be illegal to sell a violent video game to a minor (unless it’s sold to the minor by his/her parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or legal guardian). The Act goes a step further and requires “violent video games” to be “labeled with a solid white ‘18’ outlined in black” on the front cover, presumably in addition to the ESRB rating label that all games currently carry. Should a retailer be found selling “violent video games” to a minor, they could be fined up to $1,000, or less depending on what the court decides.
And there you have it: The reason why the Supreme Court of the United States will soon, for the first time, address what Constitutional protections should be afforded to video games. Tomorrow, in Part Two of our series, we’ll look at the arguments presented by the state of California to the Supreme Court. Pro tip: If you found yourself clenching your fists reading about the Act and its portrayal of violence in video games, you might want to bite down on a piece of wood before you check out our examination of California's case.
Copypasta'd for your reading convenience.
If the Bill passes this will signify a great shrinkage in the gaming industry. Arnie's obvious interest is in saving Hollywood from being swallowed whole by the Games Industry.
Agreed, as someone who's a fan of the horror genre, which was hit rather hard with when something similar to this happened to the comic industry, I'd hate for this bill to go through in the game industry which I love & want to work in.
Arnold's come a long way from being a symbol of awesome with the work in Conan, Running Man, Predator & Terminator to this. Hollywood/hollowood is in a constant state of decay due to the ongoing ideal that throwing money at things will automatically make more people want to watch something in addition to the digital age overtaking tv/movies, not so much due to video games.
In part one of our five-part feature on the upcoming Supreme Court of the United States case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Associations/Entertainment Software Association we walked you through the contents of Assembly Bill No. 1179, the bill responsible for sparking the upcoming Supreme Court case in the first place. For part two, we’ll look at California’s arguments in defense of the bill and how those arguments attempt to address the Ninth Circuit court of appeals decision, which upheld the decision that found the Act to be unconstitutional.
When the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that Assembly Bill 1179, aka the Act, was unconstitutional, it cited four main factors for the ruling, three of which California addressed in its appeal to the Supreme Court.
The first was that the same First Amendment restrictions that apply to sexually-explicit content, as established in Ginsberg v. New York (1968), cannot be applied to violent content, especially in the way California attempted to apply it. As the Ninth Circuit explained in its official decision:
“In essence, the State argues that the Court’s reasoning in Ginsberg that a state could prohibit the sale of sexually-explicit material to minors that it could not ban from distribution to adults should be extended to materials containing violence. This presents an invitation to re-consider the boundaries of the legal concept of ‘obscenity’ under the First Amendment.”
The court went on to say, “The State suggests that the justifications underlying Ginsberg should apply to the regulation of violent content as well as sexually explicit material. The assertion, however, fails because “Ginsberg is specifically rooted in the Court’s First Amendment obscenity jurisprudence, which relates to nonprotected sex-based expression—not violent content, which is presumably protected by the First Amendment,” and as such, the Ninth Circuit declined “the State’s entreaty to extend the reach of Ginsberg and thereby redefine the concept of obscenity under the First Amendment.”
California’s counter argument: “The First Amendment permits states to restrict the sale of offensively violent video games to minors”
In the first section of its Supreme Court filing, California argues that because minors lack the “capacity … to make a reasoned choice as to whether to consume specific speech,” and because “violent video games, like sexual images, can be harmful to minors and have little or no redeeming social value for them,” the restrictions put forth with regards to sexually explicit material should, in fact, be applicable to violent video games as well when it concerns minors.
The State continues this line of reasoning, arguing, “The susceptibility of minors to harmful effects of external influences, well beyond that of adults, justifies differentiations in treatment in the eyes of the law.”
Differentiating between the First Amendment rights of adults and minors lies at the heart of California’s reasoning here, and the State cites a number of court cases (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville) to support why limiting minors’ access to violent video games is comparable to limiting their access to other potentially harmful or offensive material.
Supplementing California’s arguments regarding the limited First Amendment rights of minors is the familiar “Won’t someone please think of the children?!” defense. Because kids don’t have the mental capacity to made sound judgments, it is up to parents, aided by the State via legislation like the Act, to protect minors from harmful materials, such as violent video games.
Again, the State references precedents established in a variety of cases, such as the previously cited FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which concerned George Carlin’s famous “Filthy Words” monologue about the seven words you can’t say on television, and a number of cases in which schools were shown to be in the right when banning “vulgar” books (Board of Education v. Pico, 1982) or limiting certain types of speech, like that which promotes drug use (Morse v. Frederick, 2007). The point California is making here is that the State should be just as free to “aid” parents by limiting kids’ access to potentially harmful material as schools are.
The conclusion California draws from this line of reasoning is as follows: “California Legislature should have the flexibility to limit children’s access to a narrow category of offensively violent video games that depict and even reward gruesome violence such as decapitations, torture, and mutilation.”
***
The second area where California was unable to convince the Ninth Circuit was with regards to the State’s failure to show a direct link between playing violent video games and actual psychological harm to minors. This was due largely to the fact that the studies cited by the State to support its “violent games cause violent behavior” argument were found to “suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State’s claimed interest.” Because of this lack of compelling evidence, the Court determined that the restrictions proposed in the Act were not justifiable.
California’s counter argument: “The First Amendment does not demand proof of a direct causal link between exposure to violent video games and harm to minors.”
The State argued that the standard the Ninth Circuit applied when assessing the effect of violent video games on kids was too strict, and as a result, “the Ninth Circuit placed California in a situation where it could only justify a law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors through the use of a study that can never be performed.” The study being in reference to what would be required to prove a direct causal link between playing violent video games and exhibiting violent behavior.
California uses this point to draw a distinction between the precedents set by the Ninth Circuit and those set by the Supreme Court of the United States.
“Never has [SCOTUS] demanded proof of direct causation of harm to minors in order to justify a regulation on the speech they may consume absent parental guidance. However, the opinion of the court below does just that,” said California.
Despite the findings of the Ninth Circuit regarding the studies cited by California in its initial appeal, the State goes on to argue that said studies “established a correlation between playing violent video games and increased automatic aggressiveness, aggressive thoughts and behavior, antisocial behavior, and desensitization to violence in minors and adults,” and because correlation should be all that is needed in this instance, the State argues the Ninth Circuit’s decision should be reversed.
***
The final Ninth Circuit argument addressed by California involves the State’s inability to prove that that “there are no less restrictive alternatives that would further the Act.” In other words, the State failed to show that the Act would be by far the most effective method for preventing minors from gaining access to violent video games. The Court pointed to the efforts of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and the fact that modern game consoles have parental controls built into them to refute the State’s claims, and, ultimately, reject them entirely. California’s counter argument: “The Act is the least restrictive means of serving the State’s compelling interests.”
On the topic of the ESRB, the State points to a 2004 FTC report that found that “69% of children were able to purchase M-rated games, and more than half (56%) of the youngest shoppers – 13-year-olds – were able to buy an M-rated game.” While a significant drop over previous years, the FTC concluded that “the numbers still fall short of what might be expected given the multi-year effort by the ESRB to encourage retailers to adopt restrictive sales policies.”
To further call into question the effectiveness of the ESRB, the State points out that game publishers aren’t required to submit their games to the ESRB to be rated, so “no amount of educational campaigning will impact the sale of [unrated] games to miniors.”
As for the Ninth Circuit’s assertion that the parental controls found on modern gaming consoles provide a viable alternative to the Act’s restrictions, California argues that “any child with a computer or gaming console connected to the Internet can easily search the World Wide Web for instructions on how to bypass the parental control [features].”
For these two reasons, the State concluded that “the Act, through the imposition of civil penalties, was the only effective means of ensuring that parents have the ability to involve themselves at the initial stage of the process.”
***
And that, they say, is that. And by “that” I mean “the essence of what California will be arguing before the Supreme Court in November." Be sure to tune in tomorrow for Part Three where we will walk through the arguments made on behalf of the other side of this landmark case, the Entertainment Merchant Association and the Entertainment Software Association.
I've read part one of this series of articles and I actually expected a lot worse. I do think it's important that video games don't get into the hands of minors because as we've all seen it definitely does not do good things to the kids. Should this bill pass then it will mean a shrinkage in the profits of the video games industry but ultimately if video games are going to be seen by all as something more than a primitive and vulgar entertainment medium then it's important that we stop seeing these common incidents where video games get into the hands of minors.
My only few problems with what I've read is that firstly it sounds like Yee doesn't know what he's talking about. Secondly the act states that a video game is violent if "[The violence] causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." Surely a game or even any form of entertainment can be both violent and educational (look at the mix of violence and political statements in Bioshock for example). Finally the act talks about violent games being games that demonstrate that the player “relishes the virtual killing or shows indifference to the suffering of the victim." How can a video game demonstrate what the player feels? The player may be offended by something in a game the developers did not intend them to be or they may be amused by something the developers intended to being emotionally impacting. Anyway, a very good read, thanks for posting.
In part three of our on-going series examining the upcoming Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. Electronic Merchant Association/Entertainment Software Association, we will be looking at the arguments presented on behalf of the video games industry by the EMA and ESA (aka Respondents). If you need a refresher, be sure to check out Part One and Part Two to find out more about the bill that sparked this whole debate and California’s arguments in the case.
The EMA/ESA begin their brief with a mini history lesson of sorts that seeks to frame video games alongside other “wildly popular form[s] of expression enjoyed by millions of people” such as movies, comic books, rock music, and true-crime novels, all of which have, at one point or another, faced similar attacks to the ones being levied against video games today.
Before the Respondents jump into their official arguments, they provide some preliminary information regarding the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and its effectiveness in keeping M-rated games out of the hands of minors. In their brief, California argued the ESRB wasn’t effective enough and therefore justified governmental interference in order to help parents where the ESRB was apparently failing.
In their defense of the ESRB, Respondents cited a 2009 FTC study that declared “the video game industry outpaces the movie and music industries” in three key areas: “restricting target-marketing of mature-rated products to children, clearly and prominently disclosing rating information, and restricting children’s access to mature-rated products at retail.” In fact, 80 percent of the 17-year-olds who participated in the study were unable to buy M-rated games, compared to 72 percent who were turned away trying to buy tickets to an R-rated movie, and the 46 percent who weren’t able to buy R-rated DVDs.
This brings us to the Respondents primary arguments, which consist of four major points: two concerning the First Amendment protections that should be applied to video games and two concerning the legislative failings of the Act, aka the Assembly Bill at the heart of this debate.
***
Argument 1: “Video games, including those that depict violence, are a form of expression fully protected by the First Amendment.”
This initial argument sets forth the idea that not only are video games similar to literature, movies, and other forms of constitutionally protected forms of entertainment, in that some of them include depictions of violence, but that the State’s insistence that the interactive nature of video games adds to their purported negative influence on minors is inherently flawed. To that point, the Respondents assert, “the Government is not entitled to regulate speech on the ground that it is particularly effective at conveying its message.”
On the topic of violence, the Respondents cite United States v. Stevens (2010) to show that “depictions of violence have never been considered a category of unprotected expression.” Coupled with the idea that “depictions of violence have played a central and celebrated role in literature,” (i.e. The Odyssey, The Divine Comedy, War and Peace), the EMA/ESA contend that California’s attempts to classify violence as either obscene or as being “historically…regulated as the equivalent of obscenity” are “meritless.”
Argument 2: “The Court should reject the State’s unprecedented plea to carve out First Amendment exceptions for ‘offensively violent’ video games.”
One of the fundamental issues the EMA/ESA takes with California’s overall argument is its lack of specificity. “At times it seems to say that the government has a right to restrict any expression it finds ‘offensive’ for minors. At other times, the argument seems to be limited to ‘offensively violent’ expression. And at still other times, it seems to be limited to ‘offensively violent’ video games.”
The reason the Respondents take such issue with the State’s arguments is that it “has almost no stopping point because so many expressive works contain violent depictions or other content that someone could deem offensive for minors.” And allowing this kind of broad application would cause serious First Amendment issues, not just today, but in the future as well.
With regards to California’s argument that it should have the right to prevent minors from accessing “offensive” expression, the EMA/ESA cites Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2010), which found, “We have held consistently that speech ‘cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.’”
Whereas California paints minors as lacking the “capacity…to make a reasoned choice” in terms of what content they consume, the Respondents point to conclusions reached in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. School Dist. (1969), stating, “Minors are participants in the marketplace of ideas, and are ‘unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.”
The EMA/ESA reiterate here that “the Court has not freely allowed the government to censor speech it deems inappropriate for minors, instead relying on parents to control access in the first instance.” California clearly states in its arguments that it believes it is constitutionally permissible to limit minors’ access to “offensively violent material” because “the State has a vital interest in reinforcing parent’ authority to direct the upbringing of children in order to protect their physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development.”
However, as the EMA/ESA counters, “when government regulates expression in the name of assisting parents, it usurps their role and favors the preferences of some parents over those of others. That is simply another presumptively impermissible form of censorship.” In addition, as the Respondents later argue, California failed to demonstrate that parents are incapable of keeping violent games away from their kids and thus are in need of legislation to assist them. The EMA/ESA states that not only are “nearly all video games played by minors…purchased for them by their parents,” kids aren’t always trying to buy “violent” video games, nor are they doing so without their parent present. Even if they were trying to buy an M-rated game, “the sale most likely will not go through because of voluntary retailer enforcement of the ESRB rating system.”
A fair portion of California’s argument in defense of the Act is devoted to trying to have the same standards that apply to sexually explicit material apply to violent video games. But as the EMA/ESA point out, “California’s attempt to equate portrayals of violence with sexual materials ignores an important reality: violence, unlike explicit descriptions of sex, is a central feature of expression intended for minors”(e.g. Grimm’s Tales for Young and Old, Snow White, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Lord of the Flies, and even movies such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings).
The Ninth Circuit rejected the various studies the State tried to use to “prove” a connection between playing violent video games and exhibiting violent behavior on the grounds that they “suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State’s claimed interest.” The EMA/ESA draws a similar conclusion, stating that, “If evidence of this sort were sufficient to justify treating expression as unprotected, the First Amendment would mean very little.”
The EMA/ESA go on to address the various ways “California is replaying attacks that have been launched against new forms of media going back many decades.” The same arguments regarding the “realistic” quality of games have been used in similar ways to attempt to impose restrictions on comic books, movies and novels, and each time those arguments were rejected. In terms of video games, the “interactivity” and “realistic” depictions of violence are often used to argue that they are more likely to influence kids’ behavior. Yet as the EMA/ESA states, “The reality is that 67 percent of all American households now play video games. Since the emergence of graphically violent games 15 years ago, juvenile violent crime has declined precipitously.” Argument 3: “The Act fails strict scrutiny”
There are three basic factors that need to be satisfied in order for the Act to pass strict scrutiny. It has to show a “compelling state interest, prove the Act actually serves that interest and is ‘necessary’ to do so, and show that the Act is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
As the EMA/ESA conclude, California was unable to prove violent video games make kids violent, and furthermore, the State, “does not have a compelling interest in shielding minors from constitutionally protected expression that it deems offensive.” Additionally, the Act would essentially make it illegal for a kid to buy Rainbow Six 3, yet that same kid would still be able to buy the Tom Clancy novel on which it is based, a situation that “underscores that California’s ultimate purpose in enacting the law was to target and punish a disfavored speaker, rather than achieve its asserted purpose.”
This leads into the next issue, which is that the Act “is not narrowly tailored” and so would extend its restrictions well beyond violent video games. Not only that, the Act makes no distinction between a “17-year-old and a pre-schooler, in contrast to the ESRB," which has a wide variety of age-specific ratings.
Like the EMA/ESA argued earlier, the Act isn’t the least restrictive way to keep violent video games away from minors. The ESRB has been shown to be effective in clearly labeling M-rated games, and parental controls on consoles let parents directly control the content available to their kids. Also, the suggested “18” label the Act would have required games to carry would actually confuse parents more as to the content of those games, and even obscure pertinent ESRB rating information.
The broader, and more serious, implication of the Act’s proposal of fining retailers $1,000 for selling minors M-rated games is the notion of self-censorship on behalf of not just retailers, but developers as well, since they would be less willing to include content that could potentially violate the Act and put them in legal danger.
Argument 4: “The Act is unconstitutionally vague”
To the EMA/ESA, California’s use of terms such as “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,” are far too vague and “provide[s] little guidance to game creators and distributors.” Basically, because it is nearly impossible to apply these terms to depictions of violence in video games. Do zombies, aliens, or cartoonish characters qualify as “images of human beings”? The Respondents ask, “If the game allows the player to crush a super villain with a boulder, has a maiming occurred if the villain regenerates his strength?”
Whereas “sexual obscenity is a narrowly defined category that has accrued meaning over time…the meaning of ‘deviancy’ and ‘morbidity,’ for example, in the context of violent expression is entirely undefined.” The EMA/ESA argue that should violent video games be classified as “offensively violent” speech, and a new category is established beyond the First Amendment rights of minors, it could result in a “chilling effect” on speech in the future. If kids can be denied access to violent video games, what’s to stop a law from saying they should be denied access to certain books, movies, and other forms of expression too?
This week, we’ve examined both sides of the upcoming Supreme Court case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchant Association and Entertainment Software Association, the case that will decide whether California’s law prohibiting the sale of “violent” video games is in fact, as deemed by lower court rulings, unconstitutional. The restrictions proposed in Assembly Bill No. 1179 appear straightforward, but as we’ve seen this week, those restrictions raise many serious First Amendment issues, not only for minors in terms of their rights, but most significantly for the video game industry as well.
For Part One of this series, we took you through the Assembly Bill that was drawn up by then California Assemblyman, and now Democratic State Senator, Leland Yee, and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
For Part Two, we examined California’s arguments as laid out in their Supreme Court brief. Basically, the State defended three key points: 1) Violent video games should be treated the same as explicit sexual content and should therefore not be afforded the same First Amendment rights as protected speech, 2) Access to violent video games contributes to violent behavior in minors, and 3) The “Act” is the least restrictive means for limiting kids’ access to violent video games.
For Part Three, we ran through the arguments on behalf of the Respondents in the case, the EMA and ESA. The groups countered California’s case on four fronts: 1) Video games are forms of expression deserving of First Amendment protection, 2) Carving out a special category of speech for “offensively violent video games” would be unprecedented, 3) The Act fails strict scrutiny, and 4) The Act is unconstitutionally vague.
If you haven’t had a chance to read through these summary posts, I recommend you do so that you have a better overall understanding of both sides of what will surely be one of the defining moments in the history of the gaming industry. While it does seem that California has a very steep hill to climb, particularly when you consider prior decisions in cases involving any form of potentially perceived censorship and popular forms of entertainment that have gone before the Supreme Court, You never know what can happen when those nine Justices get in that room and start hashing things out.
Perhaps most compellingly of all is that this case will be among the first to be considered since President Barack Obama’s two nominees, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, were appointed to the highest court in the land. As a result, I would expect Schwarzenegger v. EMA/ESA to get quite a bit more exposure than it would have otherwise. Whether that ends up being a good thing or a bad thing really depends on the outcome of the case. Either way, we’ll be bringing you all of the latest news leading up to November 2 and beyond.
If you just can’t get enough of the case and want to ingest even more about it, Media Coalition has a great collection of all the amicus briefs that have been filed in support of California and in support of the EMA/ESA. For you budding entertainment layers you out there, or anyone who fancies themselves a lover of the legal system, I suggest checking them out. And please keep up the awesome discussion in our comments section. It's been great to follow, and it's something we never get tired of seeing. Keep it going!
@Gamer_152: First of all, video game violence has never been scientifically linked to any real-life violence. You've seen criminal defenses use it as a scapegoat, you've seen police use it for a motive, but there is no scientific evidence that video games have ever caused violence. That would be like saying pornography causes rape and that has NEVER been true.
Secondly, the video game industry has the same restrictions as the movie industry, that being, a totally voluntary rating and enforcement policy. That's right, there's no law stating a kid can't go and watch a SAW movie, it's based on the theater to enforce that rule. Why? Because we have the first amendment and we have movies like Letters From Iwo Jima, The Last King of Scotland and MILK that I'd argue would do more good than harm to any child who saw it. These movies involve real-life historical FACT, no amount of whitewash, or censorship will ever remove your child from the truths of this world. Besides, no one leaves those movies feeling like it's awesome to kill people.
Also, per this
A list of badass historical movies: http://www.filmcrave.com/list_genre_movie.php?genre=Historical
Currently, I'm thirty years old. For more or less, I've played violent video games my whole life. I have never killed a single individual, nor have I been arrested for any violent crime. Nationwide statics regarding violent crime have decreased steadily despite the increase in the availability of video games. You'd think after the over thirty years that video games have been providing violent content to the masses, there would be more violent individuals, not less.
Nationwide statics regarding violent crime have decreased steadily despite the increase in the availability of video games. You'd think after the over thirty years that video games have been providing violent content to the masses, there would be more violent individuals, not less.
I like to think that natural selection plays a part. I can always dream.
Also, I think equating aggressive behaviour (which has been proven) to violent behaviour to criminal behaviour is quite a logical stretch.
I... I can't... My profession requires me to read walls of text--we call the books--every day. I just can't muster the energy required to read this as well. I'm sorry.
@Gaff: Well, when I mention "violent crime" you have to realize, this includes any type of fighting that isn't sanctioned in a ring. If you get into a fight with someone, you can press assault charges on them. This also includes crimes of passion like second degree murder and manslaughter. Not all of the criminal behavior people are charged with are deliberate acts of crime.
Holy crap, that's a wall of text alright. I only skimmed through parts of it.
How do I feel about this? It'll be a blow to the gaming industry, but I think it will be insignificant. Most kids get their parents to purchase a rated M game for them, so it bypasses the law completely. Still, couldn't hurt to actually enforce the ESRB ratings for once.
FWIW, I think the biggest failings in the law that the state's trying to pass are: - They apparently intend to be the ones who will decide what is or isn't too violent, offensive, etc. - 1,000 per sale of a game seems steep when there's no wording that shows any leeway for intent. I've never been a fan of mandatory minimums when it comes to fines or any other punishment, and this isn't helping to change my mind.
I like games but I don't care about anyone younger than 20. So I guess apathy wins out. As much as I enjoy 12 year olds with absentee parents dropping n bombs in COD all day. Yeah let me take time out of my day to help those cuntrags out. Good luck Arnie.
@OppressiveStink: Hmm, since we're clarifying stuff:
I actually was referring to Leland Yee et al using the current scientific correlation between aggression and video games to infer a link between video games and violence, or violent crime. in an editorial over at Gamepro used the example of testing whether taking piano lessons would lead a performance at Carnegie Hall. "A leads to B, B leads to C therefore it must be true that A leads to C". That works fine for something like billiard balls, but for something as complex a human mind - socio-economic environments, upbringing, diet, IQ, or genetics - people would be deluding themselves in believing that it can be neatly summarized in a quick sound-byte. Or a bill for that matter.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I need to use pronouns more often. Damn ellipses...
@OppressiveStink: I don't think saying "violent video games lead to violent actions" and saying "pornography leads to rape" are parallels but that's somewhat irrelevant as that's not what I was getting at anyway, the point is that I believe in the hands of the wrong minor video games can foster an aggressive attitude.They may not lead to aggressive actions and I sure as hell don't think video games make people steal cars or commit murders but I think they can have a negative impact on the personalities of minors. As I said in my post something can be both violent and educational and I'm well aware that people can play violent video games for decades and never commit an act of violence, I've been playing video games rated above my age since I was a child and I consider myself one of the most passive types of people you could ever meet.
The problem is we're not all the same, I believe the same video game could affect one child very negatively and another very positively, in a perfect world parents and guardians would be aware of the content in the games, be aware of what is appropriate for their child and be able to make sure their children only play the games that are right for them. Unfortunately we live in a world where far too often that doesn't happen and the reasons behind why it doesn't happen can range from parents just not knowing what kind of content is in these games to them simply using Gears of War to babysit their children all afternoon because they can't be bothered.
I shouldn't have said I don't want video games to get into the hands of minors, what I meant to say was video games shouldn't get into the hands of the wrong minors. No, this bill shouldn't pass and as I said even if they were going to pass something like this there are a number of other issues with it, but I still believe parents need to be educated on making sure they know what their child is playing and how it can affect them.
@Meteora: I think that government people & lawyers are blowing the idea out of proportion, if it was just enforcing the ESRB ratings & doing a better job at keeping stores from selling M+ rated games to minors, then that can easily be done without going to such an fearful extreme as treading on the U.S. Constitution. It's laws like this that make me want to just agree more with Shakespeare on what to do with lawyers, at least the ones going against common sense as well as the ones taking cases to sue any & every company because someone didn't have enough common sense to interact with the world.
There's more popping up all over on this. Here's something from the loved and/or hated Zero Punctuation.
" If the Bill passes this will signify a great shrinkage in the gaming industry. Arnie's obvious interest is in saving Hollywood from being swallowed whole by the Games Industry. "
21 Comments