The Law on Games

Video Game Laws Across North America

Roberts' statement casts the anti-violence laws in a poor light, especially when looking at what took place in Illinois last year. In February of 2005, the magazine Government Technology published an article by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich entitled "Video Game Law Would Help Us Fight For Our Kids." The opening sentences are dramatic:

A gang member drives through a city, shooting police officers, stealing cars, soliciting prostitutes, and then having sex with them. He's awarded extra points for beating them up, urinating on them, and throwing them from his car.

Presumably he's talking about one of the Grand Theft Auto releases, though urinating isn't a factor in the gameplay, killing police is strongly discouraged, and "extra points" do not apply. The Governor never named the game, but did promise to enact legislation to keep it out of the hands of children.

In June, the Illinois House and Senate passed The Violent Video Games Law and the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL), criminalizing the sale of violent and sexually explicit games to minors. Governor Blagojevich quickly signed it into law. Among the text of the bill, one line stands out. "The State has a compelling interest in assisting parents in protecting their minor children from violent video games." (Read the full text of the bill here.)

Specific language in the bill addressed the industry's self-regulation efforts: "While the video game industry has adopted its own voluntary standards describing which games are appropriate for minors, those standards are not adequately enforced."

As would later happen in Oklahoma and Louisiana, the law was quickly challenged by the ESA and retail associations. In December, US District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly declared the law unconstitutional.

James David Cain Call of Duty

Many other states, and even two Canadian provinces, have either proposed, passed, or had gaming legislation struck down. In nearly every case, the opposition mounted against gaming law is organized on constitutional grounds, as in Oklahoma and Louisiana.

Laws passed in California (Sept. 2004) and Washington (April 2005) are relatively benign, calling only for the rating system to be posted prominently at retail. In Canada, Ontario has allowed the Ontario Film Review Board to adopt ESRB ratings and criminalize the sale of M and AO games to those under 18. Manitoba mandates that ESRB ratings much be adhered to in a similar manner.

But California passed a much tougher law in December of 2005, seeking to regulate violent game content in much the same way as Louisiana. As well as a Miller-based three prong test, the bill allows violent games to be defined as those which "Enable the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the Victim."

Critics were quick to point out the irony of Governor Schwarzenegger, whose films embody many qualities specified in the passed draft, signing the bill into law. The ESA filed suit, and in December US District Court Judge Ronald Whyte issued an injunction preventing the law from taking effect, saying that "games are protected by the First Amendment."

Amid the many documented difficulties with legislation restricting game sales, one inconsistency remains. No law yet drafted would protect children from the array of violent, sexual, and racist web games littering the corners of the Internet. Games such as Border Patrol (a flash game in which players snipe illegal Mexican immigrants) have been featured in panels and hearings to illustrate the moral depth to which games might sink. But bills such as those passed in Louisiana and Okalahoma have no power over these freely distributed pieces of code. Without a retail presence, these games slip through.

In the Long Run, a Federal Crime? >>