Currently the Supreme Court is hearing the case of California vs everyone who makes a video game. The basis of the case is that CA feels it’s inappropriate to sell violent video games to minors and bans the sales of M rate games to minors just the same way that minors aren’t allowed to view R rated films in theater.
As parent and a gamer I’m torn in two directions. Do I like laws that help me regulate and stipulate what my children will see and play? Yes I do. Do I like the idea of the government telling me how to parent? No I don’t. Do I like the idea of one of my favorite media types being controlled by the government? Not one bit.
As a parent I don’t relish the idea of my child playing violent video games. Why? It can be disturbing, it can give you nightmares. That’s me protecting him. I don’t need the government to do it though. Ok, now you’re going to cry foul and say “Keith, you play those games! Isn’t what’s good for you good for you kid?” No it’s not. I don’t let my three year old drink scotch or beer. Even in moderation it’s not good for a three year old. Common sense much? The same goes for violent and disturbing images. When my kid gets older, like at least 10 years older from now, maybe I will reevaluate and think about what games my kid gets to watch and play.
On the other hand is it good that there are controls in place to keep these games from being marketed to kids? Heck yeah! However those controls might not be needed. Mature games and their developers don’t market to kids. They don’t put things in kid terms and they don’t target young children. M rated games are marketed right at adults. Some say this law is just the same as keeping tobacco companies from marketing to kids. OK fine but, that right there is the separation. Tobacco companies were marketing to kids, they ran commercials at times when kids watched tv, they put adds in magazines that were aimed at kids, and they used imagery and cinema to market to kids. Video game developers do not practice any of those marketing strategies.
In a way this legislation is redundant. CA is saying don’t make violent video games for kids! The gaming industry has said all along that they agree.
Then there is the question of freedom of expression as protected by the first amendment. Everyone gets free speech, however if you are going to walk out on the street and scream offensive words and slurs you’ll get fined. Video games are different from that situation though. You have purchase the game. That right there keeps it from being a public item. It is not public by the virtue of to experience it you must pay to play. So the innate protection is that of the relation of buyer to seller.
The second question is do games need to be rated? I say yes. I think that each game should be rated and be put into a category to aid parents in stipulating what content their children will purchase. Should their be a fine for sellers who ignore the rating and sell to minors? I don’t think it’s a necessary law. It will be very difficult to enforce and pull law enforcement from more pressing issues.
The real issue is parents being involved with their kids. If your kid wants a game do the research on it. It’s not hard at all, most developers make the rating of the game even in early development public. Also if it looks like a violent game then it probably is. This isn’t a gaming law but a good rule to go by. I shouldn’t have to write any of this, it should all be common sense, for some reason though it isn’t. My parents controlled all the content in our house and made sure we were protected from ourselves. It wasn’t hard, they just said “no” a lot. Boy did I hear “no” a lot.