Cooperation Not Legislation To Control Violent Video Game Sales

A proposal by state Assembly member Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban sales of violent video games to minors has this less-government-is-better proponent in a quandary. Too often, lawmakers at all levels of government write laws to make up for people's dumb choices and poor parenting. Unfortunately, we can't legislate stupidity out of the world.

But we also can't ignore the increasing violent nature of video games and the impact a steady diet of violence has on kids' mental health. Is it healthy for kids to play a game such as "Postal," in which the player roams through a town, gunning down unarmed citizens, including cheerleaders and the school marching band, as they beg for mercy? Absolutely not. Research shows that "playing violent video games appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts."

In addition, this potentially violence-inducing pastime is growing in popularity. Annual video-game sales now outpace revenue from movie tickets, and 90 percent of American children ages 2-17 regularly play video and computer games. According to an industry research group, the market share of games rated Mature, or M, more than doubled between 2001 and 2002 (the most recent information available). The same group reports that about 40 percent of those who play M-rated games are under 18.

While Yee's concern about the effect of violent games on youth is valid, his approach is wrong. Instead of turning to government regulation, the answer is a stronger partnership between the industry and parents.

Yee's legislation proposes to ban the sale of certain violent video games-- those involving acts that would be criminal in real life -- to minors. Unfortunately, the proposal creates a confusing new rating category that differs from the video-game industry's existing system.

Today, video games are rated according to those categorizations (much like the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system), which retailers voluntarily enforce. The ratings include Early Childhood (EC), Everyone (E), Teen (T), Mature (M) and Adult Only (AO). M-rated video games are meant for players 17 and up, and AO-rated games are for those 18 and older. The ratings include both age-appropriateness comments and 31 content descriptors (intense violence, strong sexual content, drug reference, blood and gore, etc.).

Even with the rating system in place, a 2000 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "secret shopper" survey found that 85 percent of the time, teens directed by the FTC to deliberately attempt to purchase an M-rated game in order to determine whether they would be asked for identification managed to do so without being carded.

Yee wants to prohibit minors from buying a portion of the M-rated video games -- those involving acts that would be criminal in real life. (Just as not all R-rated movies are violent, not all M-rated video games portray violence.) The problem is that Yee has no feasible plan to help retailers understand which video products fall into his new category.

So, what would happen to retailers selling violent video games to minors if the law took effect but there were no clear guidelines about which games fall into the new state rating system? A Yee spokesman said lawmakers hoped to work with the industry to make it clear, but if the industry is not cooperative, he expects that the details would be worked out in court. In fact, Yee's spokesman added, the Assembly member expected that retailers would simply stop selling violent games rather than risk being held civilly liable under the proposed law.

That is just sloppy lawmaking. It isn't fair -- or competent -- lawmaking to put a vague law on the books and then expect retailers to sort it out.

Yee's staff point to the FTC secret-shopper survey as an example of how retailers do not take the rating system seriously, thereby creating the need for government regulation. But industry representatives argue that their voluntary rating system needs to be given a chance to work before the heavy hand of government is brought down.

The FTC survey on video games also documents that 30 percent of minors can get into an R-rated movie without being carded. Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association , believes his industry ultimately can do better than the movie industry, which has been rating movies for more than 35 years.

The video-game industry launched its rating system just 10 years ago. To educate parent and kids about the system, the industry created a "Check the Rating" public-education program, which includes public-service announcements starring Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter.

In reports issued in 2000 and 2002, the FTC has consistently called on the video-game industry to restrict sales of M-rated products to minors. In response, the nation's major video-game retailers last fall announced a national campaign to begin requiring identification before allowing purchase of an M-rated game. The Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) has promised that the new carding program will be in place by the 2004 holiday shopping season.

IEMA members include Best Buy, Blockbuster Entertainment, Circuit City, CompUSA, Electronics Boutique, Gamesource, Hasting Entertainment, Hollywood Video, KB Toys, K-mart, Meijer, Movie Gallery, Musicland, Shopko Stores, Target, Toys R Us and Wal-Mart.

Membership to this powerful association, whose members sell roughly 85 percent of all computer and video games purchased in the nation, will require participation in the carding program. The group says retailers will educate store employees about the importance of enforcing the carding program and will display signage and information about the rating system in member stores. As an added incentive, the association knows federal and state legislators such as Yee are itching to bring government into the picture if the carding system, once in place, is not seriously enforced.

But there is a missing component in this discussion about kids and violent video games: parents. The video-game industry and retailers can step up their efforts to limit minors' ability to purchase extremely violent or sexually explicit video games all they want, but if parents continue to allow their children to purchase and play these games, there is little government can do about it.

Those of us who believe extremely violent video games are harmful to children by promoting an acceptance of violence would like to believe young people are buying and playing the games without the full knowledge of their parents. The reality, according to the FTC, is that parents are involved in the purchase or rental of video games 83 percent of the time. The same report showed that parents are only nominally aware of the rating system and its age-based ratings and content descriptors.

New laws won't prevent young people from playing violent video games as long as their parents allow it. Parents, not government, need to be more involved in monitoring the media children are consuming.

Yee's concern about the impact of violent video games is understandable. But his energy would be better spent educating parents about the rating system and the dangers of allowing their children to play M-rated video games.