IndustryGamers - Informing the Games Industry

California Submits Argument In Favor Of Violent Game Law

Posted July 13, 2010 by M.H. Williams

As the Supreme Court prepares to review the legislation restricting the sale of violent video games to minors, the California state government has offered up its arguments for the law. The legislation was championed by Calfornia Senator Leland Yee, who is also providing the written argument. The law itself has been under intense scrutiny with previous measures being ruled unconstitutional.

Yee references United States v. Stevens, a recent decision that refused to ban media depicting cruelty to animals. The decision to refuse the ban came down to the fact that the justices felt the law was too broad in its scope.

"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," Yee said. "We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

The brief compares the First Amendment rights of violent video games to those of pornographic material. “The First Amendment has never been understood as guaranteeing minors unfettered access to offensively violent material. Such material shares the same characteristics as other forms of unprotected speech, especially sexually explicit material,” it continues. “Throughout history, many states have enacted laws that regulate the sale of both sexual and violent material to minors. Such restrictions reflect society’s understanding that violent material can be just as harmful to the well-being of minors as sexually explicit material.”

“This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material. Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction. No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors.”

The video game industry remains pensive about the results of the review. Some, like Disney Interactive EVP Graham Hopper, fear the ruling could prevent large retailers, such as Wal-Mart, from carrying Mature-rated titles. EA’s John Riccitiello believes the law could force developers to create different versions of a title for each domestic market.

Still, the written argument maintains the First Amendment rights do not extend to minors. “It is well-recognized that the societal values served by the freedom to consume expressive material do not justify recognizing a constitutional right for minors of the same magnitude as that for adults – and this should be true whether the expressive material is sexually explicit or offensively violent,” it concludes. “Instead, while minors certainly enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, it is a more restricted right than that assured to adults, who may judge for themselves what level of sexually-explicit or violent material they should consume.”

M.H. Williams has been writing in some form or another for ten years and has been a hardcore gamer since the NES first graced American shores.  You can catch him on Twitter as @AutomaticZen, Google+ as himself, or on his personal Facebook page.