Court was right in video-game ruling
Posted on March 17th, 2008 – 12:07 PMBy Randy A. Salas
Why do we need a state law to restrict kids’ access to video games? We don’t. An appeals court panel was right in striking down a Minnesota law that sought to do that.
None of this means that kids should be able to buy or rent Mature- and Adults Only-rated video games without adult approval. It just means that video games shouldn’t be treated any differently than an R-rated movie, a steamy novel or an obscenity-laced CD. Last time I checked, buying those things wasn’t subject to state laws. (By the way, there are only two video games that have ever been rated as AO, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas [on appeal] and an old PlayStation game called Thrill Kill.)
Here’s what needs to happen:
- Parents should be involved enough in their kids’ video-game habits to know what they’re playing and what it’s rated. “He just disappears into his room and plays whatever he wants” is not an excuse.
- Parents should read the ratings from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and carefully note the descriptors for each game. A Mature rating for a game like Halo 3, which involves shooting fanciful aliens in a warlike setting, is much different than the urban-based real-life mayhem in a Mature-rated game like Grand Theft Auto. The descriptors note those differences.
- Stores should guard against kids buying games that are rated for players 17 and older without parental consent, just as theaters monitor for kids trying to get in to R-rated movies. It’s that simple.
This issue is about parental responsibility, not legislation. And it’s about treating video games no differently than any other entertainment media. What do you think?
18 Responses to "Court was right in video-game ruling"
Comparing the video game experience to books, videos, movies, or any other form of entertainment is an unrealistic diversion. It is not uncommon for the players to become totally immersed in the gaming experience, not for just hours, but for days and weeks. The alternate reality of the gaming world experience is quite different from the escape provided by reading or movie viewing.
Of course it would be great if we could reliably fall back on the parents to police the activities of the kids, but that straw horse left the barn about a decade ago. These days it is normal for kids to have an abundance of unsupervised time on their hands because of the working mom and dad, or the single parent household.
Yeah, the law is a good one, and the Judges and Randy Salas don’t have a clue.
Bob - While you may claim there is a difference between video games and other entertainment, the ruling said there is no hard research that shows any different effect on a child.
Out of curiosity how much do you play video games?
It’s not impossible to police what kids are playing- put the console in your living room so you can see what they are doing. Not to mention the parental locks you can place on all modern game consoles to lock out games based on ESRB ratings.
There’s lots of resources out there for concerned parents to learn about the content of video games. One site I recommend is: http://www.whattheyplay.com/
I’m sure there are others.
For what it’s worth — regarding Bob’s comment that I don’t have a clue — I have been playing video games since they became popular in the late 1970s. I also have two daughters, 12 and 15, who don’t play Mature-rated games without my say-so.
As far as single-parent households and latch-key kids, I would bet more of them are watching R-rated movies on HBO and on rented DVDs — and have easier access to them — than are playing M-rated video games. Heck, the sex and violence in some prime-time TV programs is more disturbing than the content of many M-rated video games — and it’s depicted in much more realism than the animated graphics of even the highest-quality games.
I think the court was right to shoot down the law. The government does not need to make the decisions for us in every single thing we say, do, or even buy.
The parents that often complain about little Johnny playing a violent videogame are the parents that bought him the game in the first place, before doing any research on the game. “Oh, we don’t know that much about video games but our son does” is no excuse. Find out what sites he visits where he learns of the games. Do some reading on those sites, and any other game review sites. It’s called “research.”
Some stores are cracking down on underage gamers trying to buy M-rated games. The only loophole to the entire process is that the parent could be there to purchase the game for the child, and the sales clerk will make the sale since the parent or other person over 18 or 21 is there to purchase it. The clerk doesn’t have to inquire who will really be playing the game. They are not expected to ask such questions, and in some places it’s against store policy. Besides, there are some 40-plus people who still play video games. I don’t mean Solitaire either. I’m talking Portal, Half-Life, or WoW.
The war on video games has been going on for decades. I remember back in the mid-90s when there was a big hoopla about the Mortal Kombat games, because a lot of parent groups and religious nuts thought “the violence was imitable” and “could harm our children.”
The problem here is that parents don’t parent anymore. They need to explain to their children the difference between fantasy and reality. The game is fantasy. You can’t really jump off walls or jump on enemies or zap them with lightning. If you do, you or they will get seriously hurt or even worse: die. Parents will buy the kid the game just to make him happy, and keep him busy while they do their own thing.
Whether a law is needed or justified, whether a law is a good or a bad idea, whether video games should be treated the same as movies, whether violent games are bad for kids–these are issues for the the people to decide through their elected representatives.
It’s called democracy, and you either believe in it or you don’t. You can’t be a democrat unless you accept that the people have the power to pass laws of which you strongly disapprove. You can’t be a democrat and go whining to the courts every time you lose a political battle.
Right on R.S!
But, I do have a question; Do any of the big retailers limit the sale of any media on their own volition?
Penn, Twin Cities-based retailers Target and Best Buy, as well as Circuit City, have sales policies expressly stating that they will not sell M-rated games to anyone under 17. Of course, experiences may vary among consumers and stores in actuality, but that is their policy. Wal-Mart and Gamestop do a lot to promote parental vigilance of the ESRB ratings, but a quick search hasn’t turned up their sales policies. Target, Best Buy and Circuit City explain their policies on their websites.
ScottM, while it’s true that laws are passed that we may not like, the legislature does not have the right to pass laws that violate the Constitution. You may not like it, but it’s the court’s responsibility to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
Actually Brad, the legislature does not decide on the constitutionality of a law or a proposed law. The courts decide if a law is constitutional or not.
But back on the topic, I think the real issue with the law should be if it was enforceable or not. Are you going to bring up charges on a 16 year old checkout person because they do not ID a kid for a game? If so, what is the proper punishment?
I agree with Bob T - Games can get you so involved you don’t know what’s real and what’s not. Now if you’ll excuse me I am going back to my dog-eared copy of The Catcher in the Rye.
Brad: But everyone who has praised the court’s decision has done so on policy grounds. I have yet to see anyone actually name the constitutional provision which this law supposedly violates. (I personally do not recall a video game clause.)
Jeff: The legislature absolutely does have a responsibility to judge the constitutionality of a proposed law. The courts do not (and cannot in a free society) have exclusive jurisdiction over the Constitution.
Here’s a good example of exactly what I’m talking about from my own state.
Now, I hate, hate, hate the Louisiana-style top two primary. I think it was once of the worst decisions the people of this state have ever made. It will damage this state by—well, by making it more like Louisiana.
Nevertheless, in this case, the court made the right decision in refusing to strike down this horrible, idiotic law. The supposed “constitutional” arguments made by the parties were clearly spurious and were merely an effort to have the courts overrule a policy they don’t like.
The political parties are clearly correct that they have the right to choose their own nominees (and the courts were right to overturn the old blanket primary which permitted outsiders to interfere in that process); however, nothing in the federal or state constitution requires that the state put those nominees on the ballot in any election.
I agree with the ruling. Where kids are concerned it is up to parents to help them develope, not any agency.
Can’t figure out Bob T Guy’s comment. I remember being immersed into a couple great movies and fully immersed into several novels. In fact, books seem to be the most engrossing of all media. Why pick on just the video games? Better yet, why pick on any of the media? Let the guardians police the matter.
Kids are going to learn how to interact with their community through their parents/guardians, not the games/movies/fictional novel/music CD. This is another dark topic that concerns me - have you seen the way some parents deal with their kids?
Randy Salas is correct about what’s on the TV - TOO MUCH! Also noticed that during commercial breaks for the evening cartoons, my kids get to see disturbing ads for movies I won’t let them see for another 8 to 12 years. These ads seem to hold back nothing. Don’t need a commercial for all the good parts of Saw III while we’re watching Scooby Doo.
I really have to compliment Randy Salas for making an excellent and extremely sensible comment on this ruling. I could not have said it better myself. I also really liked how the judges noted that it made no sense for there to be laws about video games, but not other forms of media. Video games are just the current day’s scapegoat, like comics and movies were before. It seems silly to think that comic books would be the cause of society’s ills, but that’s what people thought in the 1950’s.
Just for the record, minors should not be playing violent games, but it is up to the parents to regulate.
And one correction Randy, there actually are more than two AO games that have been produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO-rated_products
In the context of strict constitutional interpretation, the refusal of theaters to allow children to enter R rated movies, the refusal of retailers to sell M - rated games, and so forth, could then be challenged in court.
As far as parental guidance goes, why is it any more difficult for a parent to buy the M - rated game if they think it’s fine for their kid, than to buy them a beer for an evening at home although the kid is only 18? For that matter, why not suspend the drinking age laws?
If it is really a matter of free speech, which in the case of Grand Theft Auto is a ludicrous assertation, then the access to the spoken content of any media, delivered by any means, should be totally unrestricted.
I believe that there is a profound difference between most of the things that kids view, read, or play, and the game Grand Theft Auto. In most of the violent games, books, and movies, at least up until a few years ago, the bad guys got it in the end. However, now the rewards are given for abhorrent, sociopathic, indiscriminate murder. Quite a bit different from the days when we played cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, with cap guns. Now the bad guy don’t get it, but the good guy is meat on the grill, and that’s portrayed as good and rewarded.
The court in this case is rooting for the bad guys and murder. I don’t think that fits in the box when it comes to common sense.
Oh Bob T Guy, you make me laugh. It is so obvious that you do not understand the real issues here. Drinking makes you drunk, and a danger to society. A video game does not make you violent, nor in anyway a threat to society (usually less of one).
You obviously have never played GTA either, as you would find it is a story with writing that rivals most of the cinema of today, with the actors to back it up. And the themes contained within are no different than you would find in some of the most respected movies out there, such as Goodfellas, The Departed, , Taxi Driver, Boyz n the Hood, and Godfather. But the underlying point that you still did not grasp in your last post is that kids should not be playing GTA, just as they should not be viewing those movies.
Dave, if you search for Adults Only games on the ESRB site (www.esrb.org), only two console games, or video games, come up–the two I noted. The other titles are all PC games. It’s a nitpicky distinction, but that’s what I meant. The Wikipedia list includes a few video games that got AO on first submission and then were reworked for an M rating. Aside from that caveat, the larger point is that, practically speaking, there really aren’t that many AO games.
First Amendment rights are the reason the law was struck down. Games are considered a form of art and are allowed under the First Amendment. Admittedly, Video Games allow active participation while books, tv and movies are passive participation.
Video Games are currently the ‘Go To’ for blaming all that ails America’s children. Before that it was TV, Rock & Roll, Comic Books and Movies. Despite all the blame, each of those generations turned out pretty good, in my opinion.
Of all the states trying to pass a bill on video games, ALL have been deemed unconstitutional.
