Considering how important video games are to this generation, it’s a bit disconcerting that more students didn’t turn their attention toward Washington earlier this month, where the Supreme Court is now deliberating a case that could have dire consequences for the industry.
The case, entitled Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, concerns a California law passed in 2005 that bans the sale of violent games to anyone under 18 years old. Supporters of the ban claim that violent games create and encourage violent youth. Challengers call evidence of the link inconclusive and say the ban is an unnecessary violation of free expression.
While protecting minors is a noble goal, the ambiguities in the law and implications for free speech are too risky. For the sake of the industry and those who have any appreciation for it, the Supreme Court must rule in favor of the Entertainment Merchants Association.
Currently, video games are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) to determine for which age group they’re appropriate. While submission is voluntary, most retailers require a rating before a game is put on the shelves, and those rated “M” for mature are generally sold only to those over 17 years old. There have been issues before, but the system has been effective overall.
Should the California law be instated, the ESRB would be marginalized and replaced with a recklessly ambiguous system. The ESRB has six ratings, each determined by comprehensive review. However, under the California law, games would merely be labeled either “violent” or “non-violent.”
The California law defines a violent game “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” Pondering this doctrine, several games surely come to mind—financial mainstays like “Call of Duty,” “God of War,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Gears of War,” “Resident Evil and Halo. All rated “M” anyway, so no problem, right?
It becomes clear just how ambiguous these guidelines are when applied to less graphic games with the same effect. In the popular game “World of Warcraft,” there’s minimal blood and the characters are styled in a cartoonish manner. Yet, can you not “kill” a human in that game? Just like that, I could ban one of the most popular online games ever, which is rated “T” for “teen,” nonetheless.
When applied across the board, even games rated “E” for “everyone” could be classified as ban-worthy violent. One of the more humorous — or scary — aspects of the case is that the California defense cites social science research that suggests even “Super Mario Brothers” is a violent game. For those not familiar with “Super Mario Brothers,” it’s a game about two plumbers in overalls saving a princess from giant turtles. It’s about as violent as Mickey Mouse cartoons.
If such games, once rated “T” and “E,” are redefined in terms of violence, gamers everywhere would be in disarray. Granted, this is all under the California law, but so far 11 states have filed briefs with the court in support of it, and even if the text weren’t copied verbatim, to localize games to several different states would be a nightmare for game developers. Not to mention all that lovely tax money we’d be paying people to scrutinize video games for violent content. Wasn’t that something the ESRB did for free?
Beyond its ambiguity, the law also puts itself squarely on the slippery slope of censorship. As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked during oral arguments: “Why are video games special? Or does [the] principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?”
It was a good question. If violence in literature were banned, consider how many classics would be lost, regardless of cultural value. Although some games are simply violent for the sake of being violent, games like “Heavy Rain” and “Call of Duty” actually do have underlying messages and, god forbid, honest emotion. There should be a way to separate games that are artistically relevant from those that are obscene, as opposed to lumping them all together and banning them en masse.
There’s also the very realistic fear that a lack of expressive freedom in one medium could lead to a lack of expressive freedom in another, which should explain why groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association filed briefs in favor of striking down the law. They know that if this can happen to video games, it will happen to them, too.
This generation of gamers needs to pay attention to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and moreover, it needs to care about its eventual outcome. For one, it could do serious financial harm to the industry and, consequently, interrupt the flow of games. It also challenges gamers’ dignity by suggesting they’re unable to interpret cultural value when accompanied by violence. That, and we don’t want this disregard for free expression spreading to other mediums that we enjoy.
Fellow gamers, you have a stake in this fight. Keep your eyes open until next summer, when the decision is expected to be announced.