(I recently wrote a paper for school discussing the Supreme Court's recent decision to throw out the law in California banning the sale of "violent" games to children and thought I'd share it here! I've been wanting to start blogging here for a while now and thought this would be a great starting point. Let me know what you think and expect more to come!)

Trying to link popular media to the corruption of young people is nothing new in America. From Tipper Gore and the PMRC going after musicians in the eighties to the formation of the Hays code for rating movies in the thirties, people have tried to make the argument that material which some may find objectionable is detrimental to the minds of those who experience it and can be clearly linked to deviant behavior. The extent of that particular type of influence is a debate that may never reach a conclusion that satisfies both sides. With its rise in popularity over the last few decades, the video game industry is the latest target being made an example of by those who wish to limit a consumer's access to material that they find objectionable. California has tried and failed to pass a law prohibiting the sale of certain games. As with any other form of artistic expression, this is a type of censorship, something that is clearly against the First Amendment of the Constitution. With a voluntary, self imposed rating system and a lack of clear evidence as to the influence that games have on the minds of players, the dismissal of California's law by the United States Supreme Court is the right decision, the only decision, in defending the rights of game makers to be able to freely express themselves through their creations.

In 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. Retailers caught in violation of this ban would be subject to fines of up to $1000. Before the law was even put into effect it was tossed out in a San Francisco federal appeals court. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court in June of 2011 before yet again being struck down by a ruling of 7-2 as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of video game makers as outlined by the First Amendment. Proponents of the law state that the government "has a legal obligation to protect children from graphic interactive images when the industry has failed to do so" (Mears). That begs the question as to how and to what extent the gaming industry has failed.



The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was formed in 1994 to provide an industry standard rating system that works very much like the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system for movies. The ESRB randomly and confidentially selects a group of reviewers from a pool of qualified applicants to view footage from each game submitted. Upon coming to a consensus based on a specific set of criteria, the game is given a rating and sent back to the game's publisher. The publisher then has the right to challenge the decision or edit their game in order to try to acquire a lesser rating. With those final ratings printed visibly on the front and back of the packaging of every game sold, it is a fair system that has worked for years in helping parents judge whether or not they want their children playing a certain game.

Although  an ESRB rating is not a requirement, it is a voluntary process, most stores will not carry an unrated game and many companies will not license an unrated game for use on their consoles. In addition, most retail stores have policies of carding young people when they try to purchase anything rated Mature (suitable for ages 17 and up) or above, much like a movie theater employee would ID someone trying to get into an R rated movie. It is a parent's right, and their responsibility, to regulate what their children watch or play. It is not the fault of the video game industry if children are allowed to play games that could be deemed inappropriate by some; the information is out there for all to see. It is an easy system to understand even to those parents who know nothing whatsoever about gaming, and since almost all games sold in stores are required to have a rating according to their own self imposed policies, there is no excuse for any parent claiming that their child is playing something objectionable.

Allowing the government to impose a ban on the sale of any type of game should not be allowed. Had the law been upheld in court it would change the way the industry makes games. A great deal of money is made by the sale of Mature rated games and passing a law as strict as the one California proposed would see a drop in the number of Mature games produced. According to Joan Biskupic and Mike Snider of USA Today, "the audience for video games has aged - the age of the average game player is 37 and nearly one-third of gamers are over the age of 50." This means the majority of gamers today are old enough to make decisions about their entertainment for themselves. They should be able to have the choice of whether or not to play a game that others may find objectionable. Under the proposed law retailers would be more hesitant to stock Mature rated games in fear of getting fined should an employee carelessly sell the wrong game to a minor. This process has actually already occurred in regards to Adults Only rated video games. The AO rating is equivalent to an NC-17 rating for movies and almost all stores refuse to carry such games. There are very few games made that carry the AO rating due to the fact that their limited availability makes their sales extremely poor. If retailers were to stop selling Mature games altogether then the gaming industry would take a huge hit monetarily, but just as importantly, gamers would be denied their right to choose what they play.

Famed and respected film critic Roger Ebert may feel that "video games can never be art," but countless people around the world would argue that video games have evolved to a point to where they have the same ability to elicit emotions as strongly as any classic movie. Many games today are crafted with the same care and scope as any great film. They require directors, actors, writers, visual artists, musicians, and countless others to work together to create an experience that is both completely engrossing and extremely moving. How can that not be considered artistic? To deny that a game such as Red Dead Redemption, a game set in the old west with a heartbreaking story and realistically fleshed out characters, is a work of art is to deny that a movie like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is considered art as well. Both are masterpieces of their medium. Freedom of expression through such works of art is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

The argument against government interference in artistic endeavors should end there, but many people won't let it. Many still claim that violence affects young brains and the added interactivity of video games strengthens that negative influence. This leads people to conclude that the government should regulate games as if they were dangers to children's health like cigarettes or alcohol. The fallacy in this position is that while cigarettes and alcohol cause clear and testable harm to children, there is no clear evidence that violent games, or violent art of any kind, cause otherwise stable  people to turn violent themselves. In an article by Michael D. Gallagher, President of the Entertainment Software Association, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is quoted as saying, "'The state has not produced substantial evidence that...violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors.'" With a clear lack of evidence of any harm, what reason is there to subject video games to harsher scrutiny than movies or music? In short, there is no good reason.

Should all children be allowed to play any extremely violent or graphic game they want? Probably not, but that's a question that only the parents of those children should answer. From the earliest games of bouncing a dot around a screen for points to the latest masterpieces with stories of epic proportions, video games have truly grown into a rich and valued art form. At one point or another all forms of art throughout history have been blamed for corrupting youth but the evidence is never there to support such claims. In addition, the ESRB rating system is one of the most effective rating systems currently in use in popular media of any form so the concern of exposing young children to material that their parents don't want them to play is moot. The burden of responsibility falls now on the shoulders of those parents; the gaming industry has done more than enough to educate consumers about their products. The California law would have done no good if it had passed, it would have only done harm and would have stunted the growth of a burgeoning art form.




Works Cited
Biskupic, Jane, and Mike Snider. "Supreme Court Rejects Ban On Violent Video Games." USAToday.com. 27 June 2011. USA Today. Web. 28 June 2011.
Ebert, Roger. "Okay, Kids, Play On My Lawn." Chicago Sun-Times. 1 July 2010. Sun-Times Media, LLC. Web. 28 June 2011.
Gallagher, Michael D. "Video Games Don't Cause Children To Be Violent." U.S. News & World Report. 10 May 2010. U.S. News & World Report LP. Web. 28 June 2011.
Mears, Bill. "California Ban On Sale Of Violent Video Games To Children Rejected." CNN.com. 27 June 2011. Cable News Network. Web. 28 June 2011.

Permalink | Comments [14] | Digg This Article | Tweet