Brown vs. EMA

Something that I have always found to be interesting is the debate on whether or not violent video games will affect a persons behavior. From my personal experience, I would like to say the answer to this riddle is no, but there are plenty of people who think otherwise, such as the Governor of the state of California. A couple of weeks ago, the state took a case to the Supreme Court in order to make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. At first glance, this looks like a fantastic idea. There's no way that anyone would sanely want their children playing graphic games, but upon further inspection, it's clear to me why this law can't be passed. The definition of violence in video games alone would be enough to knock out almost 75% of the selection of current games. If an employer were to be found guilty for selling a violent game to a minor, they would likely be punished with a fine and receive a stern talking to. By passing this law, the gaming industry would be alienated. There is no doubt in my mind that the things that children see in movies and hear in some songs are just as bad, if not worse than the things we see in the games. If movies, books, and music are all protected under the first amendment, then games should be included too. Now, I understand that as adults, it is our responsibility to make sure that children aren't exposed to these types of things, but I feel it is the parents job to protect them, not the clerk at the game store. 

Here's a link to the court report for the 7-2 decision to not make it illegal to sell violent games to minors. Court Document

For a more layman friendly version, here's a link to the news story written by my most trusted video game news site. Friendly Version

If there were to be a law such as this to pass, it would make it a necessity to make bans like this in other media forms, like movies. Though it may not seem like it, video games are an art form and passing this law would stifle the developers work. I must say that I am shocked to see that the court ruled this way. Video games have been looked down upon for so long for their violent scenes that when I first heard about it, I was sure the state would win. One aside I will throw in is that currently, the ESRB is in charge of making the ratings for the games. A violent video game is typically rated as M, for mature, and sometimes T, for teen. At my store, we stand behind the ESRB ratings and will not allow a child to purchase an M rated game without the parents consent and approval. It isn't a law, we as a company just feel it is the right thing to do. So, had the law passed, it probably wouldn't have changed much on my end (the seller), rather, it would have limited the options for what a developer puts in their game. Personally, I am glad that the law failed to pass the Supreme Court, parents just need to step up and take a more proactive role in the lives of their children.