Continuities

May as well enter this one too! Lady luck, don't fail me now!

Yes please!

I'll take em if you're offering!

I can has?

This is a COMMENT!

Even if we ignore the argument about whether or not violent games harm children or whether or not retailers will stop stocking legally restricted games, we are still left with the Free Speech issue.

Setting a legal precedent that videogames are not protected by the first amendment is extremely dangerous, and that is exactly what this law will do. Even if this law, itself, proves to be relatively harmless (except for creating just one more law that we didn't need), there will no longer be any constitutional grounds to fight any other bills that propose further restrictions on games.

I love gaming. I love the experience of a good game, and I love the huge amount potential that the media has. We have only begun to scratch the surface of the art we can achieve with interactive media, and it would be a grave tragedy to see it cut down and stifled before it has a chance to flourish.

Restricting the dissemination of content is a violation of the first amendment. The sale of videogames most certainly falls under the protection of the first amendment.

Pornography falls under obscenity law. Legally defining content as obscene removes its first amendment protection, which is why it can be illegal to ban the sale of pornography to minors. To declare something as obscene requires proving that the average member of the community would be offended by it and that it possesses no artistic, political, or scientific merit. Clearly, videogames fail this test (personally, I think a lot of pornography can fail the test too, but that's a different argument).

Letting a minor into an R-rated film is currently NOT illegal. It is 100% self-regulation from the film industry.

As far as I know, there is no proof that stores will stop stocking mature content, but the law is still an unnecessary risk in this regard.

You are correct that there are studies reporting findings similar to what you've mentioned. There are also studies that find nothing of the sort. In fact, many of the studies that seem to support the idea that violent games cause violent behaviour have been largely incorrectly interpreted by the media and ban supporters. The major thing that you need to be aware of is that these studies NEVER prove causality (that playing violent games actually cause violent behaviour). Only correlation is determined, and the degree of correlation is rarely stressed in pro-ban arguments. The majority of these studies report a degree of correlation that is not statistically significant.

These studies also use "proxy behaviour" as a marker of violent tendencies instead of actually witnessing children abusing peers on the playground. Critics have argued that the proxy behaviours that were used were not adequately indicative of real-life violent behaviour.

If you're interested in the major studies being used to back the ban, and the flaws inherent in each one, I recommend you read the Amicus Brief filed by "Social Scientists, Medical Scientists, and Media Effects Scholars" in support of the EMA. It can be found on the ECA's page, along with many others: http://theeca.com/amicus_briefings

Now, let's get a little more squishy.

I think we can all agree that minors should probably not play violent games (or watch violent movies, or read violent books, or listen to violent music...). That's not the real issue.

The major problem with this law is that it would legally define videogames (unlike all of our other favourite media) as having no protection under the first amendment. This is a huge precedent to set. A precedent like this could open the floodgates to any other "well-meaning" laws restricting games. No first amendment protection means that it would be perfectly constitutional to ban the production or distribution of games. This is obviously not a place we want to go.

@Human1:

There are a few problems with the proposed law:

First of all, the decision of which games are "violent" enough to warrant restriction would be made on a case-by-case basis by some undefined persons in the government. The choices of which games are and are not too violent should rest in the hands of parents, not government.

Secondly, no other media is restricted in this manner. Videogames are currently self-regulated in the same way that film is. An industry ratings board determines the rating that a game should have, and it's slapped on the box in a big, colourful box. Game stores generally don't sell M-rated games to minors, just like theatres don't allow minors entry into R-rated films. This law proposes an unfair restriction on the videogame industry, claiming that games are somehow "higher risk" than any other media, despite the fact that there has been no statistically significant effects detected in controlled studies.

Despite the fact that there is no overt censorship proposed, the possibility of serious legal penalties could result in stores refusing to stock (or minimising their stock in) games that could be deemed "violent." By leaving the definition of what constitutes a "violent" game open, the government gains the ability to somewhat direct the content produced. This is bad.

The simple fact of the matter is that an excellent ratings system already exists, game retailers already institute a policy of refusing to sell M-rated games to minors, and minors STILL get their hands on inappropriate titles. The largest avenue for violent content getting into the hands of minors is ignorant parents. You can't legislate against stupid.

I can haz?