Artifact #3 Video Games in the Courtroom.

This week for my artifact I am focusing on video games and their appearances and reasons for appearing in court. More specifically I'll be talking about the "Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association" case.

Description: The cause for this case began back in 2005 when California state senator Leeland Yee:

"[...] introduced a piece of legislation requiring violent video games in the region to carry a small ‘18+’ sticker alongside their ESRB ratings. Responsibility for ensuring these games were not sold to anyone below that age then fell to California retailers, and a fine of $1,000 (£625) could be brought against those who did not comply with this new law." (Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)

The bill was passed by the state of California but was not put into affect because the Entertainment Software Association put out an injunction against it and won, and then won again when the state of California tried to pass it later on. This has since snowballed into the state of California repeatedly trying to pass this law and failing. Finally, in 2010 the Supreme Court decided to take on this case, which has people wondering why they would do that. Some argue that it's because they want to finally shut down California's attempts at passing this law, while others argue that it's because the court has had a change in opinion and want to side with California and make selling video games more government oriented.

Before I forget, the law didn't pass for several reasons.
1. They argued that video games were an artform and form of expression similar to films, books and music, and were therefore protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits all government censorship.
2. It was pointed out that ESRB ratings were already providing the service that California was seeking, and that most parents were capable of regulating the content their children saw.
3. It was also argued that there was no comprehensive proof that violent video games were harmful to children, and that a political agenda had frequently fueled such accusations in the past.
4. The ESA and EMA pointed out that the California legislature, which was based on a legal definition of violence developed in the 1970s, didn’t take into account the types of violence that modern video games could feature. In this sense its definition of a violent act being ‘an act of aggression on an image of a human being’ was vague in regards to characters like Super Mario.
(Stuart Richardson, Develop-online.net)

Analysis: The main pattern is California's desire for more control over what kinds of video games are being sold, and who is buying them. Doing so would give the government more power in the still expanding in power and popularity gaming field. It would allow the government to place specific rules and regulations when it came to buying certain games, and some might not be allowed to be sold at all.

Another pattern I noticed is basically the case itself; the reasons that the state wanted to ban these violent video games are almost always the reason, or part of it, that most people want to ban violent games. The state's definition of a violent game is that of a,

"game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine." (Brendan Sinclair, Gamespot.com)

This or something similar to this quote is the norm for people putting the blame on increasing violence or sexual occurrences, especially in the younger generations, and has been repeatedly turned down because it is both vague and biased.

Interpretation: I say that this idea is vague because what if the video game in question is very violent, but doesn't feature humans? Or what about zombies? Does Mario from the Super Mario games count as a human? Defendants of California,

"[...] conceded that it would be perfectly fine to blow Vulcans to into tiny, bloody bits under the law. In a Star Trek video game, they could show Spock dying a violent bloody death, but not not a doomed red shirt. Or could they? How would the law treat a half-human half-Vulcan like Spock?" (Doug Cornelius, Wired.com)


So the state of California wants to ban violent "Human Based" games but are ok with blowing up or dismembering aliens.

I also said that this/these statements are biased which I believe to be true to an extent. Most of the arguments stem from super violent games such as Postal 2 in which you can burn people alive with gasoline, and kill children, for example. However, they only take into account those few games that involve violence to such a high level and try to base every game that includes violence or sexual content in the same fashion.

These people are not looking at the big picture here, obviously, because they missed the fact that they said it would be ok to kill things of species other than humans. That show's a major weak point in their argument, why is it alright for a child to see an elf or zombie, which are human-like, get killed but not a human?

Evaluation: I for one really hope that this law is not passed. If it were to, it could evolve into something that could reach across the country and making creating and selling games intended for older audiences a lot more difficult. Being 21 years old now means that this law would not affect me, but it would affect all the game companies out there and their willingness to create new content with the fear that if it includes a certain kind of violence or sexual reference that it will not sell well, not sell to people who are willing to buy it, or not be allowed to sell entirely.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it all comes down to the parents of these children that the government is so worried about. I won't rant about it again, but parents should be involved in their children's lives and know what's going on. If they are doing something they aren't supposed to be, it's the responsibility of the parents to fix the problem and explain why it may not be allowed.

I also very much support the ESRB and the view that video games should be an art form. Things like movies are considered an art form, and yet people don't freak out (as much) when a violent or sexual movie comes out as opposed to a video game. I have personally played games with rich compelling stories, fully orchestrated soundtracks, and scenes that could put some movies to shame. It is because of reasons like those, and many others, that I believe video games should be treated as an art form and given more of the freedoms that come with that. Games even have their own rating system already in the form of the ESRB, and this rating system almost directly mirrors the system used for movies.

If people can watch movies or read books involving excessive violence or sexually explicit material, then why can't I take the grounds of playing that story or movie and not be scrutinized because of it?

Links to referenced sites:
Develop-online.net
Gamespot.com
Wired.com
abcnews.com