 |
Bob Colayco Associate Editor |
Games? Look in the Back, Behind the Dark Curtain
Two weeks ago, California State Assemblyman Leland Yee held a press conference in San Francisco to announce that he would introduce new legislation aimed at curbing the distribution of violent games to minors. Sounds like a noble goal, doesn't it? Any reasonable person could agree that underage children shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on M-rated games without the consent of a parent or guardian. However, it's worthwhile to dig a little deeper into these matters to find out exactly how Assemblyman Yee intends to achieve his ends.
A visit to the California State Assembly Web site to search for the raw text of the bills yielded nothing. It's possible that the bills have not yet been formally introduced to the legislature, so they're not available for public scrutiny just yet. Since Assemblyman Yee is perfectly happy to grandstand on the issue, we'll have to rely on the content of his own press release, as well as coverage from various news sources like the Sacramento Bee and our own GameSpot news desk.
The proposed legislation consists of two separate bills, one of which involves the display of M-rated video games. If passed into law, the bill would require retailers to stock M-rated games on shelves separate from other games and at least five feet off of the ground. The latter requirement is meant to keep such games out of the sight-lines of small children. It's an interesting stipulation. Does anyone think that the murderers at Columbine or the Tennessee highway snipers were under five feet in height? At their ages? Not real likely. So now we're giving violent games their own shelf, high off of the ground. I guess after the next tragedy occurs, the next logical step would be to force retailers to create a special violent games area in the back of the store, sealed off with a dark curtain and monitored by a surveillance camera. Imagine what the consequences might be for the industry if Grand Theft Auto 5 and Quake 4 had to compete for shelf space with Penthouse and Hustler.
Ok, now I'm really starting to get ridiculous by equating video games with pornography. That's not the point of Assemblyman Yee's legislation, is it? Well, actually, if you examine the details of the second bill a little more closely, you'd see that I'm not too far off the mark. The second bill would expand the definitions of section 313 of the California penal code to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" with particular emphasis placed on first-person shooter games. What exactly is section 313? A quick read of the California penal code shows that the law was written to prevent distribution of pornography as harmful matter to minors.
Yee's bill would expand the definition of "harmful matter" to include those video games depicting "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" violence. The obvious question raised is: Why is it appropriate to expand the enforcement of a pornography law to include video games? If we were talking about hentai, then the relation makes sense, but, clearly, Yee's aim is to regulate violent games, not sexual games. Who cares where the bill is placed, you say? Let's consider the potential penalties and compare similar laws aimed at curbing juvenile delinquency.
| Crime | Penalty | Source |
| Providing "harmful matter" to a minor | Up to a $2,000 fine and one year in county jail. | Section 313.4, California Penal Code |
| Furnishing alcohol to a minor | Minimum $1,000 fine and 24 hours community service | California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control |
| Selling tobacco to a minor | $200 fine first offense, $500 and $1,000 fines for second and third offenses | Coalition for Responsible Tobacco Retailing |
Is it appropriate that the potential penalty for selling certain video games to an underage customer is stiffer than selling that same child a beer or a pack of cigarettes? The potential and immediate danger to the public and the well-being of the child is clear-cut in the case of alcohol and tobacco. The connection between violent video games and violent behavior is not as clear.
Is it prudent that the state of California should add yet another law to the books that could add even more inmates to the state's prison population of 160,000? Obviously, it's tough to see a judge actually mandating prison time for a clerk who sold his 16-year-old buddy a copy of Grand Theft Auto. But even the principle and potential of it seems particularly "heinous and atrocious" at a time when the state is grappling with a budget crisis, and yearly spending on California prisons exceeds $5 billion.
There are other things that seem wrong about this bill. One is that the emphasis placed on first-person shooters would suggest the exclusion of very graphic games, like Max Payne 2, that use a third-person perspective. Ironically enough, the most often demonized game, Grand Theft Auto, would be excluded because of its third-person perspective. In fact, it's the only game that Yee uses as an example in his own press release. So selling Soldier of Fortune 2 to a kid is a no-no, but the brutal murders depicted in Manhunt are exempt because the game is third-person? Assemblyman Yee might benefit from advisers who are more knowledgeable about the subject matter he's so eager to legislate against.
Then there's the matter of the bill's constitutionality. I'm not a lawyer, but any student who stayed awake in high school civics should have learned that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment invalidates any law that is overly vague in language. The descriptors "heinous, atrocious, and cruel" seem pretty vague from a legal standpoint. What exactly constitutes "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" violence? Strangling someone with piano wire in Hitman 2? That seems pretty clear-cut. But what about a simple gunshot to the chest? Or slamming someone over the head with a chair? We see that type of violence every night on network television. And is every retail clerk required to know the exact type of violence that occurs in each game, as well as make a judgment call about what is or isn't "heinous, atrocious, or cruel"?
While Assemblyman Yee is obviously well-intentioned, the saying goes that "the path to you-know-where is paved with good intentions." I would hope that other legislators in the state will examine the issue with the proper perspective and decide wisely as to whether or not it is prudent to criminalize something so trivial at a time when the state is paralyzed with a serious budget shortfall. The money spent enforcing these laws would be better spent educating parents and retailers about the informative ESRB ratings system that is already in place.
GameSpotting: Gaiden
Welcome to another edition of GameSpotting, where we all play by our own rules because we're loose cannons who are dangers to ourselves and to those around us--because that's how the GameSpot editors like it.
