For those who have been following the California law that proposes a ban on video game sales to minors, this news will either make you cheer with optimism or scream with rage, depending on which side you are on.
Gamesutra is reporting that the attorney generals of eleven states have issued an amicus brief – a brief filed by a party claiming to be an expert on the matter but not directly involved in the case – in support of the California law, as it heads to the Supreme Court.
The law, originally proposed in 2005, sought to ban all sales of games that were deemed “violent” to anyone under the age of 18. Retailers caught breaking the law would face fines of up to $1,000 per incident. The law faced immediate legal opposition from video game publishers and developers including EA, Disney, Microsoft and Sony.
Supporters of the law are citing existing precedence with pornography cases that involve minors, while opponents are claiming that the case is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and that video games should be protected under free speech. Supporters counter that several studies have claimed a connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children, but the studies have been contentious, and have since been dismissed by the courts. Other states have attempted similar laws, and all have been defeated in court, but this is the first that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear.
“None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable,” Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling that found in favor of the video game industry. Callahan also stated that there are less restrictive ways to protect children from “unquestionably violent” video games.
Now as the case of Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association moves to the Supreme Court, eleven states have come out in support of the law, including: Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
“Protecting children from digital danger requires proactive parents — but they need and deserve help,” Connecticut Attorney General, Democrat Richard Blumenthal said in a press conference explaining his support. “The video game industry should act responsibly — play nice, not nasty — and agree to sensible self-imposed restrictions that block children from buying the most violent games. I am calling on the video game industry to follow the leadership of the motion picture industry, which sensibly stops unattended children from viewing violent or graphic movies.”
According to the FTC, the “video game industry outpaces the movie and music industries” in terms of “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.”
The case goes before the Supreme Court in October.
the law regards sale directly TO minors…it has nothing to do with parenting…parents can still buy their kids whatever they want and they probably will….
Kids do not drive to the store and use their money to buy the games…their parents drive them and they use their parents money to buy it or their parents just go get it for them. If they are really concerned about violence then they should make violent games illegal but they do not because that would not be american to tell a business what to do….it’s more american to make laws to tell americans what to do.
The ESRB does a good job of telling potential buyers exactly what type of content can be found in each game; all you have to do is flip over the case and you’ll get not only a letter rating but a breakdown of why the game received such a rating. However, not only do you get parents who could care less but you get local Game Stop kids who barely makes over minimum wage and thus, don’t give two hoots and will sell games to whomever they wish.
Yes, sometimes the ESRB gives ratings that tend to be leaner than they should be. For instance, Castlevania Bloodlines (which is an old school example) received a GA rating despite it being fairly violent because the nature of the violence was fantasy. However, a young child can’t always depict that so I believe that violence should be violence and not variations that are forced to decide between fantasy and reality – all video games, in essence, are fantasy.
The only way the law needs to be changed is to first, adopt the Videogame Rating Council’s rating system that proceeded the ESRB that was: General Audiences (GA), K-A (Kids to Adults), MA-13 (Mature, thirteen and up), MA-17 (Mature, seventeen and up) and Adult (no one younger eighteen). This way, parents have an “easier” time gauging the ages without actually having to think. The second item is to actually start rating games “A.” Games that are extremely violent or depict acts that could be considered “real life” should have this rating (GTA is a prime example) if people are up in arms about video game violence. All the ESRB has to do is send a letter to Game Stop telling them to start checking IDs on any Mature/Adult rated games. It’s done for tobacco and alcohol so why not here? If you implemented more “A” ratings you could even drop the age level for “M” games down to sixteen (the age where most kids start driving, getting jobs, etc.)
This law is just a typical government action: “we have an issue but instead of trying to figure out how to logically change it, let’s just prevent anyone under eighteen from buying video games and that will solve the problem.” As already noted by various DT readers, this isn’t going to prevent anything because some parents just don’t give a damn and anyone with older friends, cousins, siblings can get around this.
@Kim: “Kids don’t use their money to buy video games, they use their parents.” That’s an absurd statement. When I was sixteen, I worked at Game Stop and used the money I earned there to buy video games – this law would prevent me from doing so. Why should I not be allowed to buy video games because I’m a minor – I can sell them but not buy them? Also, I know plenty of kids that trade in their old games to acquire new ones – should they not be allowed to? I rode my bike down to the local Game Crazy and traded in games for new ones and I think getting rid of that system would hurt the industry more than anything.
My biggest problem with this law is that it is attempting defeat the need for personal responsibility. I’ve been gaming since I stood knee-high to a duck and I’ve played every violent game out there, including ones that I doubt any of you have ever heard of but are far more violent than what we have today (though the graphics weren’t nearly as good). I’m not running around committing illegal acts because I was taught better. All these acts of violence that are video games are blamed for is perhaps the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. Everyone remember Columbine? Yeah, it was easy for the media and the government to blame the video game “Doom” for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold’s actions. However, what the media didn’t tell you is that both of these kids had been arrested prior to the attack and without putting too fine of a point on it, were psychopaths. What they were planning on doing had no coloration to anything you could do in “Doom.”
@Trip: Do you really believe what you wrote? Do think that being able to buy video games can be put on the same level as driving a car, buying tobacco or drinking alcohol? The three items I just mentioned have dire consequences if abused: a young child driving a car could easily crash into someone, killing them; abusing tobacco and alcohol at a young age can cause irreparable damage to one’s self. While there have been deaths “caused by video game” I don’t think they were purely caused by playing. Most of the games that people have “died from” were MMOs and/or games that can be played online which to me means they were being cyber-bullied or the kids were mentally unstable to begin with. I once sat down and played Final Fantasy IV from start to finish and I felt fine afterwards. I’m going to assume your statement was out to troll and I bit, I award you 8/10.
I could keep going but I’ve said my bit on this article.
Ban violent video games and the game industry would take a major hit. That wouldn’t work. There is NO way to stop kids from playing violent video games but the parents. If I go out and buy a game for my little cousin, I make sure that it is appropriate for him. There is the same amount of violence on TV as there is in a video game, if not more. Its simple as that.
@Digital Trends…if the government shouldn’t be parenting then i guess we should repeal age limits on alcohol, cigarettes and pornography…hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we get rid of those silly age requirements for driving and military service too? we’ll just leave everything up to the parents making sure their kids make the right decisions. it just amazes me how people can form such ludicrous double standards when it comes to their own little pet issues…
No Offense Anthony but most parents have no clue what their kids are playing. One of my coworkers let his 8 year old son play GTA until another adult told him what it was all about.
Other friends knowingly let their Pre Teen play 18+ games and are proud of how well the kid plays. While its great to be proud of your kids I think there is good reason for the restriction levels marked on the box.
The government would not have to step in if it was not an issue and the parents would not have to worry about the government parenting if the parents did it themselves. so where is the actual middle ground?
And I agree, the government should not be parenting.
there is an obvious middle ground. Banding games isnt the answer, as DT says government shouldn’t be parenting, however the parent cannot play the whole game first and then make judgement, what is needed is good labelling/description, i.e. this game contains violence, mutilation and killing. Most games already do so why do you need to ban; does the government not trust the parents?
IMO it should be up to the parents to decide what video games they deem fit for their kids not the law.
you have to be 17 to get into an R rated movie; why should video games get a pass? doesn’t really matter anyway; most parents just buy their kids whatever game they ask for…