Another Game Law Bites the Dust

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a Michigan law attempting to make the sale of violent video games illegal to those under the age of 17. While such rulings have become commonplace, the specific language used by Judge George Caram Steeh sets a variety of interesting precedents. Judge Steeh actually demonstrated a surprising understanding of certain aspects of video games that have been either misrepresented or outright twisted by many of the proponents of laws restricting game sales. One of the arguments frequently used by gaming's detractors is that the interactive nature of video games makes them less eligible to be protected as expression, since much of what happens from the player's end is controlled by the player rather than depicting the expression of a designer. Steeh disagrees, drawing an important connection between the interactivity of a game and its expressive capability:

The interactive, or functional aspect, in video games can be said to enhance the expressive elements even more than other media by drawing the player closer to the characters and becoming more involved in the plot of the game than by simply watching a movie or television show. It would be impossible to separate the functional aspects of a video game from the expressive, inasmuch as they are so closely intertwined and dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience.

Detractors also claim that the interactivity of games reinforces potentially violent behavior players may be learning from what is being shown on screen. While this may be the case, there has yet to be widely accepted research indicating as such. In fact, Streeh notes, that very element of games may be having precisely the opposite effect:

The defendants do argue that video games are a 'unique' form of screen-based media because the player actually controls the violent action as opposed to passively observing these actions, but present no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Without such evidence... it could just as easily be said that the interactive element in video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they would actually perform such acts in reality.

The bottom line, according to Steeh, is that games "contain original artwork, graphics, music, storylines, and characters similar to movies and television shows, both of which are considered protected free speech." Research has also "failed to prove that video games have ever caused anyone to commit a violent act, let alone present a danger of imminent violence." It is likely that excerpts from Steeh's 17-page ruling will be used in future game-related legal matters, such as the GTA-inspired-murder lawsuit that was recently allowed to continue.