Remember the countless hours you spent in the basement as a child playing ""Mortal Kombat,"" ""GoldenEye 007"" and in your later years the ""Call of Duty"" series? Nearly every student in our generation has experience with at least one of these, but a new California law seeks to stop minors from accessing these violent games.
Five years ago, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that would prevent violent video games from being sold to minors. According to this law, a violent game includes any ""in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being in a way that is ‘patently offensive,' appeals to minors' ‘deviant or morbid interests' and lacks ‘serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.'"" Pretty definitive.
Although the California law is several years old at this point, it has never taken legal effect because it has been deemed unconstitutional in every level of federal court so far. Now, the Supreme Court has heard the case and is finally expected to rule on it next year.
This isn't the first time older generations have worried about the media corrupting the youth. Today, we're constantly reminded that violent video games ultimately spawn violent adolescents, just as a half century ago it was rock 'n' roll that was going to turn the country's youth into devil-worshipping fornicators. After all, did you see the way Elvis was shaking his hips?
The reality is this: Psychologists have yet to offer definitive proof that playing a violent game increases other violent tendencies in children. For every study that concludes virtual violence leads to an increased crime rate, there is another, equally reliable research team that says they have found no link between the two. Until video game violence is proven to be more harmful than that found in movies, television or even books, there's no reason to subject it to any higher standards of regulation.
Without getting into some of the murky details of First Amendment, let me just spell out several reasons why this law doesn't hold up under the microscope, and also why the Supreme Court should—and most likely will—strike it from the books.
First, it is highly unlikely this law will even be effective in keeping the games out of children's hands. I would guess that most video games purchased for minors are done so by parents anyway. Anyone over the age of 18 can still purchase these games, and likely will continue doing so. Whether it comes as a gift from a parent or from sweet-talking an older sibling into buying it for you, it's highly doubtful that children and teens will find it any harder to get their hands on that violent video game they're looking for.
Additionally, we already have measures in place to prevent children from playing games that are inappropriate for their age level. The Entertainment Software Rating Board rates each video game submitted to it (which includes nearly all new titles) with an age-appropriate label in order to inform parents and other prospective purchasers about the violent or sexual content of each game. Instead of increased regulation, what we really need is more education. If more parents were aware of these ratings and what they mean, they would have the necessary tools to decide what is appropriate for their own children without the government legally telling them what's best for their families.
And lastly, contrary to popular belief, the industry itself is not entirely amoral. A lead designer at Epic Games, noted for the ""Gears of War"" trilogy, has said that the company is always conscious of when the violence becomes a bit too extreme and they need to tone it down a bit. There have been games that have been criticized within the industry as being tastelessly violent, and they haven't sold well because of it. Hardcore gamers are drawn more to well-done, entertaining games, not necessarily the most violent ones.
Video games are not the enemy, and while it's certainly reasonable to protect children from gratuitous violence, that responsibility should lie with parents, not the government. Besides, our generation has spent countless hours stabbing, beating and shooting enemies before we became adults, and so far we seem to be doing just fine.
Lydia Statz is a junior majoring in journalism and international studies. Please send feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
