More

Violent Video Game Child Ban: Supreme Court To Rule On California Law

DERRIK J. LANG   10/31/10 11:23 AM ET   AP

Supreme Court Violent Video Game Ban
FILE - In this Oct. 7, 2005 file photo, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs AB 1179 bill restricting the sale and rental of violent video games to minors as Sacramento Girl Scouts look on in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Max Whittaker, file)

LONG BEACH, Calif. — Before picking up any Wii games or downloading apps on her iPhone for her two daughters, Lillian Quintero does her homework. She'll first read reviews online and in magazines, then try them out for herself. If she thinks the games are engaging and educational enough, 4-year-old Isabella and 2-year-old Sophia are free to play.

"I know there's going to be a point where they get these things on their own," said the 35-year-old mother from Long Beach, Calif. "We're not going to be there to monitor everything. That's why the most important thing is communication, instilling morals and values in them and helping them to understand certain boundaries. There's only so much you can do."

Quintero and her husband, Jorge, are some of the parents who support a California law that seeks to ban the sale and rental of violent games to children. The law, which has bounced around the legal system like a game of "Pong" since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger first signed it in 2005, was declared unconstitutional last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday about the federal court's decision to throw out California's ban on violent games, marking the first time a case involving the interactive medium itself has gone before the Supreme Court. It's another sign that the $20 billion-a-year industry, long considered to be just child's play, is now all grown up.

California's measure would have regulated games more like pornography than movies, prohibiting the sale or rental of games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" to anyone under the age of 18. Only retailers would be punished with fines of up to $1,000 for each infraction.

The federal court said the law violated minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments and the state lacked enough evidence to prove violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors. Courts in six other states, including Michigan and Illinois, have reached similar conclusions, striking down parallel violent game bans.

Under California's law, only adults would be able to purchase games like "Postal 2," the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that features the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire, and "Grand Theft Auto IV," the popular third-person shoot-'em-up from Rockstar Games that allows gamers to portray carjacking, gun-toting gangsters.

The Quinteros, like most supporters, believe the law will protect children from buying such violent titles, while gamers and free speech advocates think California's ban could lead to strict federal regulation on the content of games and other media. All agree, however, that the graphically rich medium has come a long way from 8-bit tennis matches.

The average age of gamers is 34, according to the Entertainment Software Association, and many are paying close attention to the Supreme Court case. The Entertainment Consumers Association, which lobbies on behalf of gamers, is organizing a rally outside the Supreme Court building Tuesday as "a way of sending a strong message and uniting gamers."

"It's not so much a video game case as a First Amendment case," said George Rose, chief public policy officer at Activision Blizzard Inc., the Santa Monica, Calif.-based publisher of the popular "Call of Duty" and "Guitar Hero" gaming franchises. The gamemaker filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing California's ban, which was never enforced.

Other allies in the fight include Xbox manufacturer Microsoft Corp., "Star Wars" publisher LucasArts, The Recording Academy, Motion Picture Association of America, as well as the Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, which sued to block California's ban, calling it "unnecessary, unwarranted and unconstitutional."

Opponents of the ban have called the measure unnecessary because virtually all major game publishers and retailers employ a universal voluntary rating system, much like movie studios and theaters, that assigns one of eight age-specific ratings to games, then blocks the sale of games that are rated M for "mature" and AO for "adults only" to children.

The gaming industry has actually done a better job of preventing minors from buying entertainment not intended for their age group than the music and film industries, according to the Federal Trade Commission. In a report released last year, the FTC found that 20 percent of minors were able to buy M-rated games, down from 42 percent three years earlier.

In contrast, 72 percent of minors were able buy music CDs with explicit content warnings, 50 percent were sold R-rated and unrated DVDs and 28 percent purchased tickets to R-rated movies. The FTC noted there were gaps in enforcement of age-based sales restrictions, specifically with the use of gift cards in online purchases and unrestricted mobile games.

The Parents Television Council, which supports California's ban on violent games, conducted its own secret shopper campaign this year with children between the ages of 12 and 16 attempting to buy M-rated games at 109 stores in 14 states. The group found 21 instances of retailers, including Target, Kmart, Sears and Best Buy, selling M-rated games to minors.

Leland Yee, the Democratic state senator and child psychologist who originally authored the law, contends the gaming industry's rating system is not effective because of the sweeping scope of games, which are longer and more intricate than movies. Yee said he believes violent games are more harmful to children because of the medium's interactive nature.

"This isn't an attack on the First Amendment," said Yee. "I'm a supporter of the First Amendment. This is about not making ultra violent video games available to children. Within the bill, the definition of a violent video game is so narrowly tailored because of my respect for the First Amendment. This isn't to stop the creation of violent video games."

Yee's position hasn't stopped the Entertainment Software Association's Video Game Voters Network from targeting him. The group has asked gamers to write "I believe in the First Amendment" on old or broken controllers and send them to Yee. When asked about the joystick campaign, the senator scoffed and said that any gifts he received would be returned.

The Quinteros, who practice yoga poses in their living room during rounds of "Wii Fit," won't be sending their Wii Balance Board to Yee. While they believe it's ultimately up to parents to police what games their children play, Lillian and Jorge agree that they would feel more comfortable if violent games were legally off limits from being sold to kids.

"It's one less way for children to have access to it," said Jorge, a 35-year-old middle school teacher who recently bought an iPad. "It's common sense. You don't pick a weenie off the grill with your hands because you know your hand will get burned. We shouldn't let children buy something violent that they don't think will affect them."

___

AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay in New York contributed to this report.

___

Online:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

LONG BEACH, Calif. — Before picking up any Wii games or downloading apps on her iPhone for her two daughters, Lillian Quintero does her homework. She'll first read reviews online and in magazine...
LONG BEACH, Calif. — Before picking up any Wii games or downloading apps on her iPhone for her two daughters, Lillian Quintero does her homework. She'll first read reviews online and in magazine...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 356
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
07:10 PM on 11/01/2010
Assuming these games are harmful (which is still up for debate) this law is probably useless to protect Junior's eyes from the nastiness. If your kid is old enough to go into a store and buy a game without mom & dad along, he's obviously already going over to a friend's house, where the friend's parents have likely already purchased the game for themselves or for their kid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Markus Reyes
Skippeeeerrrr!!!
05:04 AM on 11/02/2010
Of course, kids can get anything they want when their parents aren't looking. It's up to parents to make sure that they're actually parenting and not just trying to be their best friend if they don't want their children exposed to violent games.

Violent games are no more harmful than any rated PG-13 to rated R movie. Sports are more harmful to kids, in fact.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drect
He who ceases to learn cannot adequately teach.
06:06 PM on 11/01/2010
Obviously guns don't kill people, video games kill people. Lets legislate some more parenting...sad.
10:17 AM on 11/12/2010
video games dont kill people. unless you have my career and you have a deadline. if you feel like you kid is not ready for this game dont let them play them. dont take away video games. thats like a grocery market always selling bad grapes or something and you parents are like we dont want anyone to get grapes anymore!! " lets ban grapes from production". ovbviously, your dont know anything about video games if you think they are all violent. dont be so ignorant keep your eyes open. talk to parents around the country and tell them that there children under the age of 17 should not be playing this game instead of ruining it for everyone. your ruining my career. and also video games are not alive they cant go and " kill someone".
05:44 PM on 11/01/2010
Oh won't somebody PLEASE think about the children!?!?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blacksmithn
Iron, cold iron, is master of them all...
05:38 PM on 11/01/2010
When I was about 12, my mom wouldn't let me go down to the local theater to see Bonnie and Clyde because it was too violent. I had to wait until I was much older to see the video. That's called being a parent.

I don't let my 13 year old daughter watch CSI because, in my judgement, it's just a little too gruesome for her age. That's called being a parent.

So why is it so hard to simply tell your kids that they can't get an inappropriate video game? We shouldn't need a law because some minority of parents are too lazy, inept or irresponsible to do their job.
02:34 AM on 11/07/2010
While I agree that its up to the parents judgment, and their responsibility to enforce that judgment, I also think that most parents know their children enough to know if that kind of material is appropriate for their child. When I was 10-12 years old my parents would take me to certain R rated action movies because I knew that it was a movie, and the guns and blood were special effects. But there were also movies they didn't want me to see because of certain topics in the movie. I've played violent games and seen violent movies since and I have never had any difficulty distinguishing reality. That's just my two cents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Harrison
Fighting for the little guy!
04:05 PM on 11/01/2010
I find it hypocritical that one of the most violent actors in Hollywood signing a bill against violent games. Oh that's right he is a repug.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
03:51 PM on 11/01/2010
Passing laws to replace parenting. How lazy can these folks be?

This is a violation of the constitution and, as a result, must go the the Supreme Court to be overturned. Yet another waste of time, but it is needed.

This is what happens when you get church ladies and other do-gooders trying to legislate morailty. Morality is personal. Legislating will always violate our constitutional rights and freedoms.

Get the churches out of politics....now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jerrde
tea is good for you
03:18 PM on 11/01/2010
so much to do in cali , no wonder there about to foreclose that state
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kintarius
If you don't like it, you are wrong.
03:01 PM on 11/01/2010
The video game industry has become a very convenient target for those parents not willing to parent. For all those complaining that government is getting to big, it's because of bills like this. Give up a few freedoms so you don't have to spend time with your kids and learning what they do for fun. I hear kids singing along with their music that has more hate, violence and swearing than anything else, but no one's fighting that fight anymore.

Censorship is looking for a quick, small win. The targets are what once was considered the 'nerdy' group and they're preying on the those who don't understand anything about the medium for support. "You're kids are learning to murder one another by playing Xbox. Also hide your cats and dogs because by playing any of these games will make you want to do something perverted to them."

Keep your laws off my games.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sliceman
02:09 PM on 11/01/2010
Once again, parents want the government to do their jobs......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Markus Reyes
Skippeeeerrrr!!!
01:32 PM on 11/01/2010
What kid has $50-$60 to spend on video games in the first place. Idiot parents should take responsibility for their own neglect. I've seen plenty of parents at video game stores buying their 8 yr. olds games like Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Halo, etc. etc.... Video games already have a rating system and if parents actually paid attention to it, this wouldn't be an issue wasting our tax dollars on legislation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Harrison
Fighting for the little guy!
04:02 PM on 11/01/2010
What kid has $50-$60 to spend on video games in the first place
My son, 14 who has worked this summer in the family business.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Markus Reyes
Skippeeeerrrr!!!
04:57 AM on 11/02/2010
Good for him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
machineiv
05:41 PM on 11/01/2010
I can buy a Grand Theft Auto title for under $20.
photo
MyDawg1967
No Party Affiliation
01:00 PM on 11/01/2010
Video games?! How bout actual firearms over virtual firearms. How about doing something to curve the DEMAND for drugs?
12:50 PM on 11/01/2010
I think we as a society need to do all that we can to protect our countries children.But I wonder if watching a violent movie or simulating war and violence in a game creates a like action in the user, then doesn't it stand to reason that the equal and exact opposite would be true? Wouldn't there be a surge of good deeds after viewing a movie or playing a game that portrayed only positive actions? I understand that there are people who are highly suggestible, but I believe that they are using the excuse of simulated action to grant exemption to their own disastrous behavior and selfish actions. I am sure that there are plenty of credible studies that I should read. Can anyone provide some links?
photo
Veronica Monet
Couples Consultant and Sexologist
01:07 PM on 11/07/2010
Actually there WAS a surge of postive actions after the movie Pay It Forward. And if the images we see in movies and television and video games truly do not influence actual human behavior then WHY is everyone so sure pornography will harm minors? The double standard NO ONE talks about is the one which exists between our societal and legal reaction to sexually explicit images versus violent images. I do NOT endorse censorship. AND I would like to know why most people are so content to accept the notion that pornographic images will harm their children but violent images will not. How does that work?
11:31 AM on 11/08/2010
You raise an interesting point. One which I'm sure I will ponder for a few days. True, there are ripples of positive and negative behaviors in communities after an opening or run of a movie. These actions are short lived and usually preformed by those individuals who are slightly off base and highly suggestible. I also do not endorse censorship. I feel that exposure to all forms of stimuli are inevitable. What is lacking is an explanation and exploration of self. A child needs to become aware of how images affect them. Children need an explanation of how they have an individual choice and responsibility for their own actions and behavior. Only by open and honest discussion at the moment of awareness can a child identify their feelings and properly classify them.
12:46 PM on 11/01/2010
certain people are responsible for 50% of the homicides in this country and now you are blaming the video games?
photo
MyDawg1967
No Party Affiliation
12:59 PM on 11/01/2010
Define certain people? You do realize that murders often kill people they know? Everyone's an upstanding citizen until they commit the crime.
01:34 PM on 11/01/2010
Less educated and less prosperous (Poor). and very few of them are pushed by Call of Duty game or The violent Cleveland show
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
satanlite
If ur neibor wtchs Fox Nws wtch ur neibor
12:39 PM on 11/01/2010
"4-year-old Isabella and 2-year-old Sophia are free to play."

A 2- and 4-year old should be playing with REAL toys and REAL playmates not cathode ray tube, plasma LED flatpanel blobs of light and color. Her concerns, imo, are somewhat misplaced.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:45 PM on 11/01/2010
I had to shake my head at their mom buying Wii games and iPhone apps for them, what ever happened to wooden blocks, stuffed animals, and dolls?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:03 PM on 11/01/2010
They look tacky in her Prious....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Green
12:34 PM on 11/01/2010
What happened to don't tread on me. Where are all those folksy people now.