GDC: Murder, Sex and Censorship

Re-affirming his confidence in California's violent videogames bill, assemblyman and outspoken games industry critic Leland Yee maintained that his proposed legislation would stand up against First Amendment challenges.

The California bill, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in late 2005, has since been challenged in court by the Entertainment Software Association and the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

Like similar laws in several other US states, the bill would impose fines of up to USD 1000 for retailers who knowingly sold violent videogames to minors. The legal challenge presented by the ESA resulted in a temporary injunction that prevents the implementation of the bill into law, but in his address to the GDC audience, assemblyman Yee remained confident of a victory.

"The bill I was able to pass limits the sale of ultra-violent games to children. It does not prevent the sale of violent games. Ultra-violent games are a subset, where an individual performs acts that in real life would be a crime... We believe that this law stands the test of First Amendment exceptions," Yee stated.

Yee argued that the government intervention, which has so far failed to acknowledge the positive results of the existing self regulatory system for retailers using the Entertainment Software Ratings Board ratings system, is a necessity when inappropriate child rearing is occurring.

"Those involved in government aren't interested in getting deeply involved in how kids are raised. However, we see the consequences of inappropriate child rearing and we have a responsibility to protect children. It was government that stopped kids from working in factories. The reality is that when you have inappropriate child-rearing, then the state has the responsibility to step in and do something."

The California bill and a number of similar legislative proposals in other states all rely on research suggesting a link between violent videogames and violent or anti-social behaviour in real life. However, the research backing up the bills has been called into question on several occasions, and has played a significant role in the various judicial decisions to halt implementation into law with a temporary injunction.

Presenting an alternative perspective, Professor James Paul Gee, author of several books including "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy", suggested that political focus on videogames was unbalanced, and that not enough research was undertaken into the benefits of playing games.

"I argue that playing videogames in the right context can be good for you," Gee stated. "We spend a lot of time asking about how games can be bad for you, but not how they can be good for you. We rarely hear about how games could revolutionize the school system."

"To the public, there is just one game, and that is Grand Theft Auto, and yet PlayStation 2 alone has over 6,000 games. I agree it's important to learn how games can harm kids, but we should also learn what good they might do," he argued.

Referring to the supposed link between violent games and real life aggression, Gee concluded: "An emotional response to a medium does not mean that the player will take that behaviour into the real world. If so, the world would be awash with violence after every QuakeCon, but that is not the case."