DUGGAN: Video game approval should be left up to parents, not government

A boy silently walks into the game store, grabs "Grand Theft Auto III" and walks over to the counter avoiding eye contact with anyone. He takes out the crisp $20 his mom had given him and pays the incompetent cashier — no ID, no problem. As soon as he gets home, blood is spilled. Innocent screams fill the air as the percussion of the AK-47 beats softly in the background. The cartridges hitting the ground harmoniously add to the chaos like a small section of bells. The boy just smiles and collects the glowing wads of cash now on the street as his reward.

Some say parents ought to monitor the games their children are playing, while others, like Democratic State Sen. Leland Yee of California, insist that it should be the state's prerogative to prohibit the sales of violent video games to minors.

A bill Yee wrote — Assembly Bill 1179 — prohibited minors from buying or renting violent video games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." Retailers who violate the act can be fined up to $1,000.

This was shot down on Monday with a 7-2 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds of violating the First Amendment.

"Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. "That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."

Though it is a relief this California law was declared unconstitutional, the time, energy and taxpayers' money that was put into it is absurd. Yee tried to implement a state law that is already practiced by many video game distributors.  The law he wrote also attempted to put government power where it isn't needed.

Like movies, video games have a rating system that is established by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or the ESRB. These ratings range from "E" (Everyone) to "M" (Mature players 17 and up) and are based on the content of the game, similar in criteria to a movie rating.

Just as a minor cannot see a R-rated movie, one can similarly not purchase a M-rated game without an ID. This is not a federal, or state, law by any means, but just an agreement established by the ESRB and video game distributors.

Movies receive very little flak from angry parents because the rating system is well established and understood. Though it is not a law, theater owners and most rental stores voluntarily uphold the rules and regulations that correlate to the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America's film-rating system) and don't let minors access these videos without parental consent.

Yes, it is still possible for minors to occasionally be let into a R movie by a lazy ticket seller, or perhaps a struggling theater, but I personally have been required to show ID several times seeing a R movie. At the same time, parents are more familiar with movie ratings and are more likely to monitor the content their kids are watching.     

The reason video games are a problem right now is because the system is new. Being established in 1994 and associated with a medium of entertainment that is not as familiar to adults as movies, the ESRB still needs a little time to establish itself as a warning sign for adults to look for when buying games for their children.

With this, I add that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor the games their children are playing, and by no means should it be a law upheld by the state. The system of buying and renting games needs to mature to the likeness of movies, and distributors need to consistently check the IDs of potential minors. If movie theaters can uphold these standards in a relatively consistent manner, so can game stores.

I am so opposed to the restricting of video games to minors because it could hold unwanted results in the future. With the passage of one bill that restricts a form of media and entertainment to minors, numerous cases could be built off of it restricting other forms of media from reaching kids. Federal censoring of the youth is dangerous and should primarily be done by parents.

Justice Scalia writes, "A state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm ... but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

However, Yee goes on to state that "as a result of (the Supreme Court's) decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community."  

This is incorrect in the sense that Walmart is required to check ID. Though some clerks may not check, it is required. This goes for many other large-name gaming distributors like Best Buy, Target, GameStop and EB games: All stores are required to check ID when selling a game that is rated M. Yee's statement is nothing more than a stab at a big name corporation in an attempt to stir up some supporters, because let's face it, almost everyone loves to hate Wal-Mart.

Also, there has been no study that proves video games directly relate to violent behavior. Though they are the first thing blamed whenever a shooting occurs, there is no concrete evidence to support the idea that video games alone cause the violence. If video games did cause an increase in youth violence, one could expect the rate of juvenile crimes to increase as the games became more common. However, according to an FBI crime report in 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile crimes has fallen 49.3 percent between 1995 and 2008. Meanwhile, video game sales have quadrupled in that same period.