Considering how important video games are to this generation, it’s a bit disconcerting that more students didn’t turn their attention toward Washington earlier this month, where the Supreme Court is now deliberating a case that could have dire consequences for the industry.
The case, entitled Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, concerns a California law passed in 2005 that bans the sale of violent games to anyone under 18 years old. Supporters of the ban claim that violent games create and encourage violent youth. Challengers call evidence of the link inconclusive and say the ban is an unnecessary violation of free expression.
While protecting minors is a noble goal, the ambiguities in the law and implications for free speech are too risky. For the sake of the industry and those who have any appreciation for it, the Supreme Court must rule in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association.
Currently, video games are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) to determine for which age group they’re appropriate. While submission is voluntary, most retailers require a rating before a game is put on the shelves, and those rated “M” for mature are generally sold only to those over 17 years old. There have been issues before, but the system has been effective overall.
Should the California law be instated, the ESRB would be marginalized and replaced with a recklessly ambiguous system. The ESRB has six ratings, each determined by comprehensive review. However, under the California law, games would merely be labeled either “violent” or “non-violent.”
The California law defines a violent game “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Pondering this doctrine, several games surely come to mind—financial mainstays like “Call of Duty,” “God of War,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Gears of War,” “Resident Evil and Halo. All rated “M” anyway, so no problem, right?
It becomes clear just how ambiguous these guidelines are when applied to less graphic games with the same effect. In the popular game “World of Warcraft,” there’s minimal blood and the characters are styled in a cartoonish manner. Yet, can you not “kill” a human in that game? Just like that, I could ban one of the most popular online games ever, which is rated “T” for “teen,” nonetheless.
When applied across the board, even games rated “E” for “everyone” could be classified as ban-worthy violent. One of the more humorous — or scary — aspects of the case is that the California defense cites social science research that suggests even “Super Mario Brothers” is a violent game. For those not familiar with “Super Mario Brothers,” it’s a game about two plumbers in overalls saving a princess from giant turtles. It’s about as violent as Mickey Mouse cartoons.
If such games, once rated “T” and “E,” are redefined in terms of violence, gamers everywhere would be in disarray. Granted, this is all under the California law, but so far 11 states have filed briefs with the court in support of it, and even if the text weren’t copied verbatim, to localize games to several different states would be a nightmare for game developers. Not to mention all that lovely tax money we’d be paying people to scrutinize video games for violent content. Wasn’t that something the ESRB did for free?
Beyond its ambiguity, the law also puts itself squarely on the slippery slope of censorship. As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked during oral arguments: “Why are video games special? Or does [the] principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?”
It was a good question. If violence in literature were banned, consider how many classics would be lost, regardless of cultural value. Although some games are simply violent for the sake of being violent, games like “Heavy Rain” and “Call of Duty” actually do have underlying messages and, god forbid, honest emotion. There should be a way to separate games that are artistically relevant from those that are obscene, as opposed to lumping them all together and banning them en masse.
There’s also the very realistic fear that a lack of expressive freedom in one medium could lead to a lack of expressive freedom in another, which should explain why groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association filed briefs in favor of striking down the law. They know that if this can happen to video games, it will happen to them, too.
This generation of gamers needs to pay attention to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and moreover, it needs to care about its eventual outcome. For one, it could do serious financial harm to the industry and, consequently, interrupt the flow of games. It also challenges gamers’ dignity by suggesting they’re unable to interpret cultural value when accompanied by violence. That, and we don’t want this disregard for free expression spreading to other mediums that we enjoy.
Fellow gamers, you have a stake in this fight. Keep your eyes open until next summer, when the decision is expected to be announced.
— Steven Zoeller, University College freshman
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
localsooner 1 year, 6 months ago
"Considering how important video games are to this generation, it’s a bit disconcerting that more students didn’t turn their attention toward Washington earlier this month, where the Supreme Court is now deliberating a case that could have dire consequences for the industry."
You're surprised that more students aren't concerned with this supreme court case? Students that are over 18 and don't live in California? LOL
dargus 1 year, 6 months ago
During oral arguments, the Justices were pretty tough on both sides. I got the feeling they didn't like this particular law, due to the ambiguity you mentioned, but weren't against the idea that a law could prevent minors from buying some violent games.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 6 months ago
@localsooner: The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional for the whole nation. If the California law is found valid, then the all 50 states are free to pass identical laws. As was mentioned in the article, 11 other states support this kind of legislation. This isn't just a California issue.
Okie3L 1 year, 6 months ago
"It was a good question. If violence in literature were banned, consider how many classics would be lost, regardless of cultural value. Although some games are simply violent for the sake of being violent, games like “Heavy Rain” and “Call of Duty” actually do have underlying messages and, god forbid, honest emotion. There should be a way to separate games that are artistically relevant from those that are obscene, as opposed to lumping them all together and banning them en masse."
Read the law again. It has an exception for games which have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. So this part of your argument is gone. Moreover, this issue is infinitely more complex than you think.
Freshmen shouldn't be writing articles on legal issues. Seriously.
DancingTableLeg 1 year, 6 months ago
@Okie3L: Kind of. It says if the violence somehow "causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
So basically, violence and artistic value are encouraged to not occupy the same space. The law doesn't specify when violence should be seen as encroaching on art either, so that speaks more to its sheer ambiguity. The article doesn't want games with messages to be banned. Unfortunately, the way the law is structured, this can still happen based on the subjective opinion of whoever will rate these games. This also raises the question (which is exemplified in Heavy Rain and Call of Duty): what if violence is part of the message, or enhances it?
It hardly protects children from the "psychological" repercussions the law is supposed to protect against to say "it can be as violent as it wants to be as long as it has a message. It all goes back to the ambiguity talked about earlier.
HT307 1 year, 6 months ago
This is the same state that banned Happy Meals
They believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do.
They get what they deserve.
Oklahoma still believes in liberty and freedom