Law Professors on the California Violent Video Game Bill

Rydia writes "In light of the California Legislature's amendment and consideration of AB 1792, regarding violent video games, Findlaw's Vikram Amar (UC-Hastings) and Alan Brownstein (UC-Davis) have written an editorial on a child's vs. an adult's protections under the first amendment, and the right of the state to introduce legislation in this vein. It is welcome to see the topic discussed on its own legal merits, in lieu of actual law, and not the moralistic turf both sides of the debate have attempted to claim as their own."

Comments

My take

[black mariah]

The gaming industry should, as a whole, start regulating itself. Start forbidding retailers from sellings M rated games to minors. I like my Vice City as much as the next guy, but if a 13 year old is going to be playing it, their parents should be aware of the content and it should be up to them whether it's allowed in their house or not (for the record, I'd let my kids play it). By restricting the sale to minors, you don't bring up any more issues than not allowing kids into R rated movies does. This is something every gamer should get behind, just as most everyone did with the ratings system a few years back. The more the industry and its customers regulate themselves, the less the goverment gets involved.

Re:My take

[Babbster]

Self-regulation is super in concept but impossible to implement effectively. The fact is that video games are sold in too many disparate types of outlets for there to be a cohesive policy that will be implemented for every retailer. All it takes is one store owner who feels that there are enhanced profits to be obtained by selling to anyone who walks in the door, and any regulatory efforts by the industry moot - "Darn, Wal-Mart won't sell me Manhunt. I guess I'll have to go to WackyGames (fake store name, BTW)."

Laws against selling intensely violent games to minors are a good thing. They'll hopefully keep the nuts (Lieberman and company) quiet, yet parents can still make their own decisions - they just won't be legally able to decide to give their kid money and tell them to go to the store and pick up Vice City and a pack of Kools.

Re:My take

[GTarrant]

But note that it is not the motion picture industry itself that forbids those under 17 access to R-rated films, it is the theaters themselves that have made the agreement to do so. The ratings are just that, ratings.

I think the video game industry goes *farther* than the motion picture industry does - not only giving a rating, but explaining what in the game caused the rating (you'll see things that say "T - Some violence, light profanity" and such).

If *stores* decide, as theaters do, to get together and restrict the sales of M-rated games to minors (which I have no problems with), then that's fine.

The only way this whole "politicians pass laws on video games that they would never pass for movies" will pass is when they start realizing that video games and movies are, in essence, equivalent forms of entertainment. If you asked the same people trying to pass these laws if it's a good idea to require, say, Blockbuster (for rentals) or Best Buy (for sales) to take *all* R rated movies and put them in a separate section, they'd probably laugh and say "Of course not, that wouldn't be legal." Neither will this be.

T.

missing the point

[SkunkPussy]

According to the bill, the key requirement of heinousness, atrocity, or cruelty can be established if, in addition to other requirements, the game "depicts exceptional pain or suffering on the part of the victim and is accompanied by a graphic depiction of the victim's injuries," and "the circumstances surrounding the violence indicate that it is committed without conscience, pity, or empathy."

What if a game depicts no pain or suffering on the part of the victim, but is accompanied by a graphical depiction of the victim's injuries? Surely its worse if the consquences of violence are not made clear? If you are not reminded of the suffering then perhaps you are not going to be aware of the consequences of violence?
Arguably all the programmes like starwars where there is fighting all the time, but noone gets injured, noone gets hurt could be worse in terms of desensitising people to violence?

just my two pence.

God save the lawyers

[aminorex]

> It is welcome to see the topic discussed on its
> own legal merits, in lieu of actual law, and not
> the moralistic turf both sides of the debate have
> attempted to claim as their own

Oh yes, heaven knows how terrible it is when people
discuss issues on their moral merits. There's no
money in that.

Next thing you know, people will be making actual
decisions on the basis of *right* and *wrong*!