27 Jun, 2011
A long time ago, in October of 2005, a law was signed into being in the state of California. The law stated that the selling of or rental to anyone under the age of 18 (in other words, a minor) would be a felony. The law stated that a violent game was a game that gave players a mulititude of ways for “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Given that even some of the most cartoony games receive a T-rating for “cartoon violence” these days, many of us feared that such a law would dampen developer creativity and give us games that starred non-violent creations like unicorns and butterflies. Well, given that these unicorns aren’t as violent as the ones found in Elder Scrolls.
The law generated quite a debate when it was first signed into being so many years ago, and it still continued until now, since it potentially meant getting carded at the store for buying a game. There was also the implication that video games were the cause of violent behavior in minors, a long-standing debate between members of the gaming community and those not within the gaming community.
However, during the course of the proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed evidence of past studies that videogame violence directly corralates to violent behavior in players:
“Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.”
Earlier today, the decision was announced by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court that such a law was unconstitutional, with the vote going 7 to 2 in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association.
“EMA welcomes today’s Supreme Court ruling that found the California video game restriction law to be unconstitutional,” said Bo Andersen, the President and CEO of EMA in a press release today. “We are gratified that our position that the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression has been vindicated and there now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music, and other expressive entertainment.”
In yet another step towards media equality, this ruling now places video games on the same protection level as books, plays, and movies, with the court stating that video games “communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium.”
This doesn’t mean the uphill battle is over. There are still ongoing arguments as to whether the sale of violent games to minors cultivate violent behaviors, and along with that comes arguments of parental responsibility. However, the regulation of sale to children should be a responsibility that falls into parents’ hands, says Andersen.
“Video game retailers understand that they have a responsibility to help parents make informed decisions about the video games they buy for their children and to ensure that children are not able to purchase Mature-rated games without their parents’ permission,” said Andersen. “…as the Court noted, the ESRB rating system for video games ‘does much to ensure that minors cannot purchase seriously violent games on their own, and that parents who care about the matter can readily evaluate the games their children bring home.’”
Rather than having the government tell us what we should be bringing home, common sense should be telling us just that. If minors were to walk into a game store and buy the most violent games and come home with it, would it be the fault of society as a whole, or would it be the individual’s fault?
That being said, what is your opinion on this historic ruling for the gaming industry? Do you agree or do you not agree?
To read the full decision, read the PDF document here.
For more information on the court case, read the EMA’s FAQ on the case history here.
Via EDGE.
No comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks