Let’s face it; as the videogame industry continues to rapidly expand and become an ever-greater recognized medium, uneducated parents and politicians will continue to blindly blame games as the cause of the world’s many problems. Typically, this is also the case for the music industry, which tends to attract similar controversy with genres such as Rock, and more recently, Rap and Hip-hop. Providentially, the videogame industry has been able to go untargeted for the simple fact that it always maintained a somewhat innocuous ambiance about it.
However, now that the industry has grown into this USD 17 billion a year market and furthermore, seen an increase in the average age of the gamer, the tides have changed and the innocence that the videogames industry once held has transformed into a battle ground for politicians and lawyers. As a result, this brings us to the topic of videogame censorship.
Censorship could either be good or bad, depending on which side you are on. In the case of videogames, censorship is not necessarily a favored notion for those within the industry, for the simple fact that their career is soley based on the freedom of creative art. Even you, the fans, are affected by what happens on the censorship front as it fundamentally limits what you are allowed to enjoy. As a result, censorship is typically fought against by videogame fans and companies alike; however, there are others out there who believe that a strong regulation of videogames is needed in order for society to progress to greater principles. How much of this will we see in the future? Who and what are protecting videogames? Finally, how do other countries outside of the United States handle videogame censorship? All is now answered.
Videogames are Free Speech:
In particular, the primary reason why the United States Government has been unable to craft a strong grip on the videogame industry is because of the idea that videogames in the United States are classified as “Free Speech”. Thus because of the free speech protection, the government cannot place a ban of any sort on videogames. Grand Theft Auto IV, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Resistance 2, are all free speech practices by their respective developers and publishers. For the government to say that Konami cannot develop a game such as Metal Gear Solid 4 is to say that you or I are not allowed to wear particular brands of clothes or drive certain cars. It is because of the insight of free speech that the videogame industry has not been crumbled by the government.
Since only a small amount can be done to have any lasting impact on this market, many politicians are grouping together to think of creative ways to damage the industry. In Wisconsin, Senator Jon Erpenbach proposed a 1% sales tax on videogames and consoles to fund rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents. In New Mexico, the “Leave No Child Inside Act” proposes a 1% excise tax on videogames, consoles, and TVs to fund outdoor education programs for children. The Bill is currently before the House Business & Industry Committee.
US Government v. Videogames:
The videogame industry and the United States Government have had a nice diminutive history between one another. I would like to describe it as a Tweety Bird vs. Sylvester the Cat or Road Runner vs. the Coyote type relationship where one is constantly trying to take down the other but always seems to fail. This analogy is essentially the videogames industry vs. the US Government. It must be noted that whenever a family values group, parents, or the government has tried to attack the industry, the courts has almost always ruled in favor of the videogames market. This is why I brought up the cartoon examples, because for the most part, Sylvester and the Coyote never really got what they wanted, despite their greatest efforts. Just how long is this immunity going to last? With this year being an election year, all the candidates will try to impress various sides of the coin with their stance on regulation of videogame content. Some are decidedly more lenient than others, but no matter what their stance is, this year’s election holds a lot in terms of the future of videogames.
What do presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John McCain hold for the future of videogames? Conclusively, they are the firepower that will either help the industry or send it into a dark alley with no light to find an exit. The winner of the 2008 election will decide the policy taken in regards to censorship in videogames and it should also be noted that the President is the one who appoints all of the federal judges and Supreme Court Justices, which in return will be the ones deciding the outcomes of future cases versus videogames. So where do the current candidates stand on videogame policy?
On the democratic side, there are currently two candidates standing, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Senator Clinton is an extreme anti-videogame activist. If elected president, she has promised that she will continue to support videogame regulation to the extreme. In 2005 Clinton sponsored the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which is created for the sole purpose of restricting the sale of “inappropriate” videogames to children.
While not as acute as Senator Clinton, Senator Obama does support videogame regulation in some form. In a quote from Obama, he states:
“I would call upon the videogame industry to give parents better information about program and videogame by improving the voluntary rating system we currently have…And even if the industry does do some responsible self-policing, there’s still a role for the federal government to play. We need to understand the impact of these new media better. That’s why I supported federal funding to study the impact of videogames on children’s cognitive development.”
Obama has also given praise to the new technological innovations that allows parents to hold better control over what their children play. However, he states that the ratings system such as the ESRB needs to be clearer and explains that if provisions are not made, then his administration would.
Meanwhile, newly nominated GOP candidate Senator John McCain is just as stern; believing that videogames should be issued with warning labels in a similar manner to cigarettes. McCain explains that he is calling for a closer look at the “entertainment media and the violent images….with which they are bombarding our children.”
While some being more extreme than the other, all 3 candidates support videogame regulation in some distinctive way. Therefore when you vote in that primary, or general election, make sure you have a clear understanding of where they are in terms of videogame policy. While videogames may be experiencing a sense of invulnerability at this current time, who knows what the future may hold and what uncanny strategy these three candidates may initiate.
Jack Thompson:
Jack Thompson is a critical individual in the crusade against violence and videogames. An attorney from Ohio, Thompson has defined himself as an antagonist within the videogame industry. As I explained earlier, videogames are protected by free speech and unfortunately Jack Thompson is trying to get around that notion by calling violent videogames, “murder simulators”.
"Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They’re not even speech. They’re dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it," as explained by Jack Thompson
Thompson was also part of the Posey v. Take Two/Sony case which was later dismissed by the judge based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In this case, Thompson filed a wrongful death suit against T2/Sony after a 14 year old boy, Cody Posey, killed his father, stepmother, and stepsister. The supposed reason was that he was influenced to kill his family after he had played Grand Theft Auto.
Censorship on an international front:
In the United States the government cannot bully around videogames because it is classified as “Free Speech.” Without this essential constitutional right, the gaming industry could be drastically different overall here in America. However in other countries, unfortunately the free speech card is not always granted. Let’s take a look at how other countries around the globe handles the videogame situation according to their standards.
Germany: This country has some of the strictest videogame laws in all of Western Europe. After a school riot that left 3 dozen people dead or injured, the politicians in Germany brought up the idea of them doing away with the sale and distribution of videogames that are deemed violent. This has brought the German politicians to lobby the pan-European Union to create restrictions on violent videogames.
Australia: Outside of Europe, this is a really tough country for videogames to be released. Australia does not condone the sale of videogames that receive an, “M for Mature,” rating. Instead, any game that is unsuitable for players aged 15 and older are just banned altogether. Some games worthy enough to mention that have received bans in Australia are Manhunt 2, Dark Sector, Grand Theft Auto III, NARC, and Marc Ecko’s Getting Up.
China: In this country it is not so much about violence, but preserving the overall image of the country that seems to come into play. In China, they have concrete censorship laws against games that divulge state secrets, damage the nation’s glory, or disturb social order. For an example, the Swedish game, Hearts of Iron, was banned because of “distorting historical facts and damaging China’s sovereignty.” They also have a strict law prohibiting the play of MMORPGs for any longer than three hours at a time. Going against these rules would be in direct violation of the Fatigue Law that China has instituted within its borders. China has also banned children from internet cafes in general.
These are just several examples of videogame regulation in other countries. So for you gamers in the United States, understand how easy you have it and let this be a guide to how things could be if videogame censorship is able to run rampant.
Here comes the Boom
As videogames continue to grow and become much more a part of the mainstream culture, the industry will always be under the critical microscope. In the end, the US Government cannot actually prove that videogames cause harm to children. Yes, they can prove that there are violent videogames, but they continue to fail in making the connection that videogames provoke any truly violent acts. Alcohol causes harm to children, guns cause harm to children and so does cigarette smoke. All of this can be proven, but how does Resistance: Fall of Man cause harm to little 7 year old Jason? How does Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune cause harm to 12 year old Kelly? That is the main goal for the government and something that they are constantly trying to get around. Until then, the videogame industry will continue to grow and prosper, which it has done in the past decade and maintains to do so in the next few years.
“Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” – Justice Potter Stewart