Video Game Controversy - Regulation of Video Games

Regulation of Video Games

In response to concerns about video games, governments around the globe have enacted or attempted to enact legislation regulating, prohibiting, or outright banning video games. Similarly, support for video game and media regulation has been linked to moral panic. To that end, different video game content rating systems have been introduced across the globe.

Psychology professor Chris Ferguson discusses in an interview how these myths are perpetuated. When asked to describe the nature of how negative propaganda is spread by activist against video games, Ferguson explained that many respected academics and elected officials develop apprehension towards the media in question and formulate disproportionate accusations of harm. Those claims are out in the public when expert evidence proves them to be invalid, making it difficult to withdraw from such allegations. Possible motivations for why activist claims are not retracted are "...there are certain financial incentives and political incentives. It’s hard to get grant money arguing that something *isn’t* a problem...and some scholars take money from anti-media lobbying groups. Politically scholars to support a government mandated censorship regimen naturally intend to be in charge of that regimen themselves". Ferguson adds that present research on violence in video games confirms no valid link, "The best studies now coming out — those which take care to use well-validated clinical outcome measures and which carefully control for other important risk factors — provide no support for the belief that VVG contributes to youth violence".

Voluntary rating systems adopted by the video game industry, such as the ESRB rating system in the United States and Canada (established in 1994), as well as the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) rating system in Europe (established in 2003), that are aimed at informing parents about the types of games their children are playing (or are asking to play). Certain game publishers’ decision to have controversial games rated seems to show that they are not targeted at young children. They are rated by the ESRB as "Mature" (M) or "Adults Only" (AO) in the US, or given British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) ratings of 15 or 18 in the UK. The packaging notes that these games should not be sold to children. In the US, ESRB ratings are not legally binding, but many retailers take it upon themselves to refuse the sale of these games to minors. In the United Kingdom (UK), the BBFC ratings are backed up by law, so it is actually illegal to sell the game to anyone under the indicated age, and many UK retailers go beyond that and also enforce the PEGI ratings, which are not backed up by law. No video game console manufacturer has yet to allow any game to be published in North America with the harshest ESRB rating, "Adults Only", signaling that the game is only appropriate for ages 18 years and up. Additionally, no major retailers are willing to set aside shelf space for AO-rated games. Although Grand Theft Auto San Andreas was given a rating of AO after widespread surfacing of an add-on originally deleted from the game, "Hot Coffee," in which the player controls a fully clothed sexual encounter. It was later fully removed and the game retained the M rating. GTA San Andreas is the best selling game to ever receive the AO rating.

The sales of M- and AO-rated games to minors has been an issue of much concern to parent groups and public officials, and bills have been submitted to government agencies, including the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act introduced to the US House of Representatives in both the 109th Congress and 110th Congress. The proposed legislation would require an ID check for M- and AO-rated game purchases. The bill was not passed into law, and other proposed bills were stopped because of First Amendment violations.

Although no law mandates ID checking for games with adult content, a 2008 secret shopper survey done by the Federal Trade Commission shows that video game retailers have voluntarily increased ID verification for M- and AO-rated games, and sales of those games to underage potential buyers have been reduced from 83% in 2000 to only 20% in 2008.

In April 2011, the Federal Trade Commission undercover shopper survey found that video game retailers continue to enforce the ratings by allowing only 13% of underage teenage shoppers to buy M-rated video games, a statistically significant improvement from the 20% purchase rate in 2009. By contrast, underage shoppers purchased R-rated movies 38% of the time, and unrated movies 47% of the time.

On January 7, 2009, Representative Joe Baca of California’s 43rd District introduced H.R. 231, the Video Game Health Labelling Act. This bill called for labels to be placed in a "clear and conspicuous location on the packaging" which states "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behaviour." The proposed legislation mandated that all video games with an ESRB rating of T (Teen) or higher be subjected to the compulsory labelling. The press release accompanying the introduction of the bill referred to scientific studies from the Pediatrics Journal, Indiana University, University of Missouri and Michigan State University which pointed to a "neurological link between playing violent video games and aggressive behaviour in children and teenagers." The proposed legislation was referred on to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. On January 24, 2011; Rep. Joe Baca reintroduced the Video Game Health Labelling Act as H.R. 400 of the 112th Congress. The bill was once again passed onto the Subcommittee.

On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, cited video games as protected speech under the First Amendment. The case centered on a California law that sought to restrict sales of violent video games to minors. The video game industry, led by the Entertainment Merchants Association and the Entertainment Software Association successfully obtained an injunction on the bill, believing that definition of violence defined by the California law was too vague and would not treat video games as protected speech. This opinion was upheld in lower courts, and supported by the Supreme Court's decision. In the decision, the Court determined that there was no direct link between violent video games and their influence on children, in as much as compared to other types of media like television and pictures, and that they could not create a new class of restricted speech that is not applied to other forms of media.

Video game consoles have been banned in China since June 2000.