6/15/2005
Video games: State attempts to protect kids run into free speech
Some video games today are as far removed from "Pacman" as "Mary Poppins" is from "Debbie Does Dallas."
The most tasteless of these interactive games are shockingly violent and sexually explicit - hardly entertainment suitable for children, even young teenagers.
And what should the state of Michigan do about them? Very little, except encourage parents to perform their parental duty as the first and most influential buffer between their kids and inappropriate video games.
Of course, the instinct in the Capitol is to glom on to "family values" legislation that seeks to punish retailers who rent or sell these games to minors. One such bill would punish offenders with up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has joined the bandwagon.
These are heartfelt sentiments about protecting children, but they are, at best, misguided emotions. It's one more example of a government trying to be the surrogate parent, at the expense of free speech.
Some folks may not consider a violent video game to be protected speech, but that has been the correct conclusion by three federal courts. They have struck down state laws similar to the one Michigan is contemplating.
Here's what the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 2003:
"We do not mean to denigrate the government's role in supporting parents, or the right of parents to control their children's exposure to graphically violent materials. We merely hold that the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority ... "
There seems to be little doubt that a new Michigan law that attempts to regulate video games will meet a similar fate in the courts.
It is noteworthy that video games are rated the way movies are, for age-appropriate audiences. In fact, the video game industry's rating system is considered by many to surpass in sophistication the movie rating system. The industry has a six-level rating system that rates games from EC (early childhood) to AO (adults only).
What should receive support are less onerous bills, such as House Bill 4703. It would require signs and brochures be present in stores that explain the rating system. Nearly everyone, including the video game industry, thinks this will help.
The problem, and the solution, begins at home. Studies indicate that 83 percent of all video game purchases and rentals are being made by parents. Sound familiar? Think of the parents who don't exercise control over what their children watch on TV. Or those parents who routinely take youngsters to R-rated movies.
Parents, not the government, are the appropriate censors when it comes to what video games kids play. No amount of new laws, which risk bumping against the First Amendment, will protect children from these games if parents abandon their duty.
The most tasteless of these interactive games are shockingly violent and sexually explicit - hardly entertainment suitable for children, even young teenagers.
And what should the state of Michigan do about them? Very little, except encourage parents to perform their parental duty as the first and most influential buffer between their kids and inappropriate video games.
Of course, the instinct in the Capitol is to glom on to "family values" legislation that seeks to punish retailers who rent or sell these games to minors. One such bill would punish offenders with up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has joined the bandwagon.
These are heartfelt sentiments about protecting children, but they are, at best, misguided emotions. It's one more example of a government trying to be the surrogate parent, at the expense of free speech.
Some folks may not consider a violent video game to be protected speech, but that has been the correct conclusion by three federal courts. They have struck down state laws similar to the one Michigan is contemplating.
Here's what the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 2003:
"We do not mean to denigrate the government's role in supporting parents, or the right of parents to control their children's exposure to graphically violent materials. We merely hold that the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority ... "
There seems to be little doubt that a new Michigan law that attempts to regulate video games will meet a similar fate in the courts.
It is noteworthy that video games are rated the way movies are, for age-appropriate audiences. In fact, the video game industry's rating system is considered by many to surpass in sophistication the movie rating system. The industry has a six-level rating system that rates games from EC (early childhood) to AO (adults only).
What should receive support are less onerous bills, such as House Bill 4703. It would require signs and brochures be present in stores that explain the rating system. Nearly everyone, including the video game industry, thinks this will help.
The problem, and the solution, begins at home. Studies indicate that 83 percent of all video game purchases and rentals are being made by parents. Sound familiar? Think of the parents who don't exercise control over what their children watch on TV. Or those parents who routinely take youngsters to R-rated movies.
Parents, not the government, are the appropriate censors when it comes to what video games kids play. No amount of new laws, which risk bumping against the First Amendment, will protect children from these games if parents abandon their duty.
