Video game industry to Supreme Court: Games, like movies, are art

The video game industry on Friday filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, outlining its best arguments against a 2005 California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The law, which has not gone into effect, was ruled unconstitutional by a lower federal circuit court but was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case Nov. 2. The case pits the 1st Amendment rights of children against parents' rights, through the state, to regulate their kids' media diet.

The 78-page document can be boiled down to four main points: 

1) Video games should be considered an art form, alongside movies, books and music. As such, it should enjoy the same 1st Amendment protections against censorship. Although the California law  doesn't forbid companies from making violent content, it singles out certain games based on their content. "The Act restricts this protected speech based on its content," wrote the Entertainment Software Assn., which represents game companies, and the Entertainment Merchants Assn., representing game retailers.

2) The law is a solution in search of a problem. Parents have little trouble moderating what their kids can play, given that the vast majority of games have ratings that indicate whether they contain violence. Here's an excerpt: "The State ignores the industry's successful self-regulatory efforts, parents' level of involvement in game-purchasing decisions, and the availability of technological parental controls, all of which achieve the State’s purported goals without government interference."

3) Violent games are not necessarily harmful. The industry argues that the state has failed to prove video game violence is harmful to children. In addition, "offensive" violence can be found in all sorts of media, from "Harry Potter" movies to "Grimm's Fairy Tales," the brief argued. "California has not shown that the Act materially addresses a specific harm that the State has a legitimate interest in targeting," wrote the ESA and the EMA.

4) The law's definition of violence is vague. The law defines violence as "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." This, argues the brief, is not straightforward when it comes to a "fanciful medium." "Games often include zombies, aliens, demi-gods, or cartoonish characters like Super Mario, all of whom may appear human but then transform into other beings," the brief noted.

The Supreme Court has set a hearing where both sides can defend their arguments Nov. 2, when no doubt there will be enough action for an epic game of legal chess.

-- Alex Pham

Photo: Luigi appears to maim Toad with a knife. Credit: somegeekintn via Flickr.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[this is retarded]

1st and this is the stupedist garbage ive ever seen. they already have esrb and if your under 17 your parents have to approve the game or buy if for you. This violates our rights. they don't have this for movies and theres plenty of garbage on there just as bad or worse than videogames. this is pointless. its the parents responsibility

[Mr. Z]

It's a good argument.

I hope they win, the Evangelical Christians are the ones who always cried "What about the children"!

Then they can't even control their own kids. Christians want everybody else to control theirs, it's never the Christians fault for anything!

Evangelical Christians are NEVER WRONG OR GET IN TROUBLE.

Evangelical Christians "NEVER HAVE PREMARITAL SEX AS CHILDREN ENDING WITH A CHILD & UNWED MOTHER"!

No their perfect!!

IT'S TIME to take back our Country from the Evangelical Christians and this is just a start!!!

[Dennis Jones]

Evangelical Christians? You've got to be joking. This mess from California cannot be laid solely upon that group as they're generally under fire there as well. This is but another example of the NANNY STATE trying to dictate what's good for you and what isn't. You can point to Christians being the roots of some problems, but this particular issue isn't theirs. Oh, and I'm not one of them either.

[Matt]

First of all, Mr. Z, you're an idiot, plain and simple. Way to take an issue and make it your own (your own issue that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here, btw).

Anyway, moving on. This is complete farce. It's just politicking at it's finest, a simple case of "look, we're watching out for your children" when really it's fixing a non-issue with an unconstitutional solution.

You can't argue that video games aren't art, especially if you're arguing that movies are. Just as much time goes into games as movies, many times more time goes into the games. If movies are meant to immerse you in a story, how much greater is that immersion when you're actually controlling the protagonist, in essence directing the movie yourself in real time?

But, regardless of even those issues, this really boils down to the government being able to tell us what we can and can't have. I would think that more non-gamers would be involved in advocacy on this issue. If they manage to get this upheld, how many more things will they begin regulating? We're all discussing how movies are safe from this, but are they? Once this gaming regulation passes, how long before we hear "we've kept violent games from your kids, it's time to regulate the violent movies as well"? How far will they take this?

I hope this gets the unbiased media coverage it deserves, but I'm positive it won't, as todays news organizations are a joke. I for one will be making sure those around me know the facts about what's going on.

[MKG]

Let me get this straight...Shwarzenegger has appealed a case concerning banning the sale of violent materials? He has made some of the biggest grossing "violent" movies of our time! In the original Terminator he knocks on a woman's door, asks her her name then proceeds to push it in and blow her away in cold blood. How about we fine some of your residuals and call it even you hipocrite?

[Weez]

i've been aware for some time that california was a totalitarian state, but since when is it okay for them to trod all over our first amendment?

games, movies, books, paintings, songs and any other product that is the result of a person or persons works of fancy are art.

the esrb system, while not perfect, has worked pretty well so far. there's absolutely no need to mess with it. movies have been under the jurisdiction of the mpaa for quite some time and it works pretty well also. is california going to force the multitude of book publishers to start rating their books? record companies already put explicit content labels on their media, is that not enough? should we ban classic art because it depicts nudity? perhaps the churches should remove all depictions of the crucifix based on it's obviously violent nature?

it would seem that parents are not capable of policing their kids, but so be it. i, for one, feel it is unnecessary to shield our children from violence and sexuality as long as time is taken to explain to them the morals that you, as the parent, want them to adhere to. i'll be damned if a state such as california, or any other, will tell me what my kids can't be exposed to. that's my call.

in short, if a child is exposed to violence, or nudity, it is the parents role to educate them, not the government's. i don't want to live in a state of tyranny.

[Meh]

I don't think it's our government's job to restrict minors from games, but rather that of the industry, or furthermore, the parents.

The esrb could afford to do some work, maybe introduce a rating between T and M. For instance, how does a game like Halo, a game mild enough for the same evangelical christians to let their youth groups play, get smacked with the same rating as manhunt, or dante's inferno? Don't make me remind you of the circle of lust.

Though I do agree with weez, the esrb does do it's job well enough, and it's time we stop recognizing video games as a children's plaything or culture exclusive to keggers and college students, and start seeing them as an artistic medium that they are. Schwarzenegger needs to give it up, and go make a sequel to kindergarten cop or something.

[Tox]

"i've been aware for some time that california was a totalitarian state, but since when is it okay for them to trod all over our first amendment?"

Video games have been under fire by at least half of these United States. Dozens of similar laws have been proposed and defeated across the country. This law is simply yet another attempt at regulation by yet another state. Don't make such regulation a "California issue" because, in all likelihood, your state has also tried and failed like so many others.

[Church]

Does this mean, while at work, I have to get parental permission to sell any Lego video games because of dismemberment?

[Mini Biker]

As a kid I always managed to get my hands on the " forbidden stuff" :) . If you don't talk to your kids and educate them don't expect the TV or in this case computer games to do so. The problem is not video games it's parents. I agree that a violent game shouldn't be sold to children but as I said if the parents don't keep an eye on them they will manage to get it somewhere else.

[and history repeats itself again]

does anyone else seem to recall the people that attacked metal music back in the 80s and that psychologist that had the whole nation up in arms about comics back in the mid 50s early 60s

this is a clear sign of what people have to look forward to if they dont learn from history you get people who think they know what is best for someone else when they probably dont have a clue on what is best for themselves and their kids let alone you and your kids

just another sign of how stupid people can really be