Supreme Court Case
Today it is anticipated that the Supreme Court will rule on the case known as Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. In this case, game merchants say they should be able to sell the most extreme violent video games to minors. While it's illegal for children to purchase to so-called "adult" movies, if the merchants get their way, no violent video game content would be considered as going too far to be safe for children.
A dozen of my colleagues and I authored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, substantiating our view that violent video games can cause harm. Known as the Gruel Brief, we submitted a statement on video game violence "authored by thirteen of the most recognized media violence experts in the United States, Germany, and Japan, and endorsed by 102 additional researchers." 1
Why are child protection laws necessary?
An important question to consider in light of today's anticipated decision is this: Why do we make laws that restrict the sale of some things to kids that are legal to sell to adults? Why don't we let kids buy liquor, guns and ammo, for instance? Why don't we let kids go to X-rated movies or buy cigarettes, when adults can?
I think the reason is that children are vulnerable and, by definition, immature. They haven't fully learned to make decisions that are healthy for them. And, by extension, we've decided as a culture on a group of things that are unhealthy for children. These include alcohol, tobacco and X-rated movies.
The law in question (originally known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association) was challenged before it went into effect, the court ruling "that there is no violence-based notion of obscenity. Therefore, violence-no matter how morbid or graphic-is fully protected speech..."2
Violence as Obscenity
This is the idea I would like to draw your attention to today. I'd like you to think about whether it is a good idea to protect kids from explicit sex but not explicit violence. What it comes down to is this: is there any level of violence that you would consider obscene? Is there any level of violence that you would consider inappropriate for children?
For me, the answer to those questions is easy. The answer is yes. If you cannot imagine a violent video game that is too extreme to sell to children, I refer you to my earlier post about the game RapeLay - a game that glorifies the crime of rape as well as psychological torture. This is an extreme example and I use it because the topic of the day is whether or not there is violent video game content that is too extreme to be healthy for children.
It's relevant to this case that the entertainment industry has been allowed to police itself. This is true for the film industry (an exploration of this, see Kirby Dick's documentary This Film is Net Yet Rated at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/.). It is also true for the video game industry, which rates its own games.
Allowing Merchants to Make Child Protection Decisions
Businesses, as entities, exist for the purpose of making profits. (For a great film treatment of the subject, see The Corporation at http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46). Therefore, it is unsurprising that the merchants are arguing for their right to sell controversial and potentially harmful content to children. In other words, you can't expect a business to act in a way that puts ethics before profits because of the nature of the structure of motives in business. So, who protects children? It is one function of government to protect children by providing an environment that fosters health and deters harm.
Business and government then can be at odds since their motives are at odds. This situation is further complicated when businesses attempt to use their considerable resources to make changes in governmental regulations. By allowing business to influence government regulations, even those involving harm to children, we pit the power of money against the desire to create a safer environment for American children.
What our Laws Say About our Values
Think for a minute about the reputation of Americans through the eyes of the International community? We have a reputation of being violent, but sexually repressed compared to many European countries, for instance. This is reflected in this notion that we should protect children from exposure to sex but not violence. When it was discovered that one version of Grand Theft Auto contained scenes involving oral sex, the game was removed from shelves. It was not removed because it contained violent scenes that could be argued were equally graphic.
I want us to realize and think about these judgments we are making as a culture. We have to be aware of the double standard in the rules we're playing by: there's such a thing as too sexy for children, but no such thing as too violent for children. Personally, I think there is a level of violence that could be called obscenity. We can't claim there's reason that sex in the media is damaging, while simultaneously arguing that violence in the media could not possibly cause harm.
Update 1
It was just announced that the California ban on selling violent games to children was rejected. As CNN reports, "The 7-2 ruling is a victory for video game makers and sellers." (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/)
Update 2
Later in the week, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart questioned the Supreme Court decision saying,
"I have kids. I love video games. But I still think there is a certain limit to...I mean, once you start disemboweling your Mortal Kombat opponent...I would think a 10 year old should have to not be able to buy that."
And, in the segment that preceeded that statement, pointed out the irony of kids being restricted from sexual content, but not from grotesque and extreme violent content.
