Center for Freelance Writing: Video Games and Freedom

Today, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to strike down a California law prohibiting the sale of "violent" video games to children. Former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, believes that the government has a "responsibility" to protect kids and communities "against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions." But writing for the majority today, Justice Antonin Scalia claims that the law "is seriously overinclusive," stripping "the First Amendment rights of young people whose [family members] think violent video games are a harmless pastime."

The video game ban draws parallelism to the movie ratings. Children under the age of 17 require an accompanying adult over the age of 18 to view R-rated movies. There currently also exists the NC-17 rating, which prohibits those under 17 in all circumstances. It is important to note though, that any ban on video games can only prohibit the sale, not the usage. The analogy to movies begins to fall here, since video games are played at home, while movies are played in theaters, where restrictions can be effectively enforced. Government cannot, on practical terms, prohibit children from playing of violent video games at home. The California ban would've been similar to the R rating. It is the parent giving the approval, but in the end, it is the child playing the game, or watching the movie. But is that the effective solution against violent video games?

Studies have shown that violent video games have detrimental effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in a 2009 study that "exposure to different forms of media ... can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed." However, whether or not there is parental consent does not alter the games' effects. Furthermore, there is no NC-17 equivalent of video games to truly contain the effects. If the government truly wants to mitigate the effects of violent video games on children, it should focus on informing parents and the children about the negative effects. Restricting children's ability to buy them on their own is not effective in reducing the negative effects; they still have legal outlets to play the games, which causes the same negative effects. This isn't battle against drugs or even controlling movie viewing. When it comes down legal domestic activities like playing video games, violent or not, there can be no containment, only education and information.

Sources: