California Puts up Argument to Supreme Court Over Videogames

The state of California submitted its arguments for its proposed ban, Tuesday, which would make it illegal for violent videogames to be sold to minors, classing them as obscene and as equal to pornography. The document is for the Supreme Court to mull over and help it decide whether the law, which has already been knocked down by local courts, should in fact be instated.

In the argument, State Senator Leland Yee goes into detail as to why the proposal should be put into Californian law, with its main aim of “empower[ing] parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder.” He contiunes to say that while children to have certain rights under the First Amendment, “no rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors.”

What he misses, of course, is that violence in videogames has been matched – even exceeded – by violence in films, yet no such law is being placed upon cinema or TV. Reading through his statement (which can be read in full at Game Politics) it sounds like there is a genuine attempt to protect children, but what the law misses is that videogames are being singled out. Surely there are much more accessible mediums for children to view violence, especially as television and film is more widely distributed?

There’s also a previous Supreme Court judgement which ruled that videos of animals being cruelly killed were under protection. He attempts to dismiss this by saying if the law was more specifically targeted, it would have gotten through and that: “Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech.”

To me, the intention is there, but what’s missing is an understanding of the value of videogames as an art form. Games, while not as popular, are as artistically valid as film or literature (no matter what Roger Ebert says) and so should be treated as such. The press hysteria over violent videogames has created ignorance over their true nature. Yes they’re violent, but they’re not meant for children – exactly how violent films aren’t meant for kids either.

By specifically targeting videogames as obscene, but ignoring the Saw movies, you discriminate against one media – an entire industry. The argument is not about preventing children playing games (videogames companies want this as much as parents’ groups do, otherwise their industry comes under threat from laws just like this), it’s about ensuring that as a medium it remains as important as their more mature forms of entertainment.