Ben Gonshaw: Digital Media Theorist & Game Design Consultant
Home Latest Updates Design Rants Musings Links Comments

CAN THE BAN?

22nd February 2005

There has been a lot of press recently surrounding videogame bans. Alabama State Representative Jay Love has introduced a bill in the Alabama Legislature that would make selling games to a minor a crime punishable by up to three months in jail.

Love says some games are not fit for youngsters because of their realistic violence and sexually explicit material. Love's bill is awaiting action by the House Judiciary Committee. At the same time, California Speaker, Leland Yee, has introduced a bill that would prevent gamers 17 years and younger from purchasing videogames that portray excessive violence against human beings.   There are quite a few opinion pieces strewn about the web. Almost all of them are the unfailingly obvious knee-jerk reaction of ‘why blame the games’ that most gamers like to regurgitate time and again. It is precisely because of this attitude that such legislation is needed.   I am cheering this fit of good sense by California and Alabama. Yes, they know that games are not evil and yes they understand that parenting and schooling are most important factors in shaping a youngster’s views. However, they also recognise the power of games to deliver a message. They recognise how far gaming has come and the need for the bill is borne out of the pervasiveness of games.

It can only be a good thing that games are treated in a similar way to movies. It is a good thing that the age ratings are taken seriously. I do not want to see twelve year olds playing GTA. I do not want to see twelve year olds playing Soldier of Fortune, Manhunt or Riddick. Remember it is illegal not to wear a seatbelt. The counter argument is, ‘But I have a right to choose whether I want to wear one or not. It’s my own health, and I can do what I like with it.’ There needs to be a degree of ‘nanny’ lawmaking for the idiot contingent that do not or cannot grasp the need for basic safety. I think of the bill as acting on behalf of the parents who do not yet understand that games are not just for kids, or those too lackadaisical to censor their children’s viewing. The bill speaks more about the maturity of games than one thousand swear words and impossibly pert FF cups. Yes, they say, there are games out there that are not for children and we should prevent children from seeing them (whether they are suitable for thinking adults is an entirely different question). This is a responsible, mature and serious response to the problem and it can only benefit the games industry in the long term.

Wired has a good look at the issue here with plenty of good quotes. It’s a bit outdated when it comes to the different bills, as it’s from June 04.   My vote for the densest anti games lawyer goes to: Jack Thompson, a Florida lawyer, who would rather see murderers free on the streets and blame their behaviour entirely on games, to the extent that the project manager himself pulled the trigger. Mr. Thompson needs a whole set of ‘idiot’ laws creating just for him, or one day he’ll himself murdered in a very bloody way by the managing director of Random House (book) publishers if someone takes Bret Easton Ellis’s ‘American Psycho’ too seriously. However, he can still take comfort knowing that, as the knife plunges towards his breast, the man holding the blade is not the perpetrator, but someone behind a desk several thousand miles away.

 

Write Comment : Back to Musings