Stranger 109

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte finally ruled the California 2005 Video Game Law as unconstitutional. Penned into law on Oct.7 of 2005 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and spearheaded by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D), AB1179 banned the sale and rental of “violent” videogames to minors. Punishable by a $1000 fine, the bill essentially placed violent videogames within the same category as tobacco products. Despite attempts to insist that violent games pose both psychological and neurological harm to children, the bill’s arguments were shot down by Whyte’s ruling:

Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.

The Governator has since issued a statement that he will be filing an appeal against the ruling, thus continuing the crusade to legislate what is unsafe for children. So it is very likely that we will see this thing go all the way to the Supreme Court given his resolve and the vested interest of the entire gaming industry challenging it.

There are a number of concerns to note here. Most important, the bill raises several First Amendment issues. Organizations like the ESRB and ESA fully recognize that as a cultural product, videogames need to be categorized for consumption based on their content. The creation and promotion of a rating system, not unlike what the MPAA uses, provides a self-governing system precisely for this purpose. Both Yee and Schwarzenegger want this rating system reinforced with a fine on the retailer or rental place that does not comply. To argue against AB1179 does not imply a disregard for the rating system or the concerns of parents who want to safeguard their children from mature content. Those in the gaming industry who oppose this bill fear the potential slippery slope that a law like this can establish. By legislating who can have access to a certain cultural product, the state of California would become a cultural gatekeeper and clearly violate the spirit of freedom of speech. We most certainly do not want games that are designed for adults to be distributed among children; however, does that require the support of the Californian government so that does not happen? And to place videogames in the same category of threat as tobacco seems to grossly overlook the cultural value they possess. Not to mention adopting a position that is indefensible with any sound scientific data.

Second, the issue of violent videogames causing violent behavior is a highly politicized one, with a great deal at stake on both ends of the political spectrum. Yee’s use of the typical rhetoric implored by conservatives to try and scare the public about the danger of games represents the core point that anti-game politicians tend to adopt. Whyte’s response cuts right through the rhetoric and makes the very sound argument that the violence experienced in games has no greater threat than that of film or television.

But once again, the interactive nature of games give them a quality that raises much concern for both political parties. While politicians like Yee want to insist that the enactment of violent acts in games supposedly leads to violent behavior, the most recent study done by the APA (the very same study that Jack Thompson loves to proclaim puts an end to the argument) says that exposure to violent video games leads to “aggressive” behavior. However, the study is quick to point out that this is also true in other forms of media like film and television, which completely undermines Yee’s position. So if the study that supposedly “ends the argument” does not provide a clear indication that games are in fact more harmful than film or television, how can we begin to legislate who should be playing them? Treating them differently is not only unconstitutional, but obfuscates the very real issues of youth violence in this country. Scapegoating videogames may cause an inconvenience for developers and publishers, but the greater concern is that it provides too easy an answer to a considerably more complex problem. So while the Governator continues the push to keep AB1179 on the books, I hope he at least appreciates the irony if not hypocrisy of having starred in films with some of the highest body counts in action film history.