From left to right: Jim Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media; George Rose, executive vice president and chief public policy officer of Activision Blizzard; and Michael McConnell, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.
Within the bustling heart of San Francisco's financial district last Thursday evening, the Commonwealth Club played host to a hot-topic debate that sought to explore the possible link between children's exposure to violent video games and their likelihood to commit violent acts. It also discussed the possibilities and ramifications of a controversial California violent video game law criminalizing the sale of M-rated games to children under 18 sponsored by State Senator Leland Yee. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of that law.
Yee was slated to share his beliefs on the issue during Thursday's debate, but the senator was mired in legislative talks to untangle California's pernicious budgetary problems. His wingman was Jim Steyer, head of Common Sense Media, a "think of the children" organization that advises parents on explicit content. You probably know CSM as the group that raised a big stink to the Federal Trade Commission in 2007 about the ESRB's downgrade of Manhunt 2's rating from Adult to Mature after developer Rockstar Games released a censored version of the game.
Also in attendance was George Rose, executive vice president and chief public policy officer of Activision Blizzard. After serving as part of the company's legal counsel for over 14 years, Rose's stance was predictably opposed to any sort of restrictive law. Michael McConnell, who heads Stanford's Constitutional Law Center, was an impartial participant brought on to share his predictions on how the Supreme Court will deliver its ruling.
Check out some of the thoughts from each of the debaters below, and as always, feel free to express your own thoughts about this topic in the comments section.
"There's no question that there's demonstrable, scientific evidence of violent games having an impact on children. The American Academy of Pediatrics have stated that violence in movies, TV, and games has a direct cause to a rise in aggression." –Steyer, opening statements
"We believe that creators of video games have the right to make violent games; the only issue is limiting violent game sales from minors because of the impacts on their lives, and requiring that only an adult can purchase these kinds of games." —Steyer, opening statements
"Sure, let's just go ahead and allow the video game industry to regulate itself. They're always going to have the children's best interest at heart, right? Industry self-regulation is not a credible argument. The goal here is to find a way that respects free speech while protecting the best interests of kids." —Steyer on defining the limits of what is permissible for industry oversight
"The industry shouldn't be punished for something it hasn't done. It should instead be lauded as a testament to self-regulation. It's absurd to think the industry can't regulate itself. A government regulating speech is exactly why I fled the Soviet Union. " –Rose, opening statements
"This statute is based on what many consider 'junk science': handfuls of studies made by people that love to quote themselves. They have no merit whatsoever, especially when nearly every court and scientist in the country has said that there's no foundation between violent games and an increase of violence in kids." —Rose, opening statements
"I'm not doubting anyone's good intentions, but Yee's law is both overinclusive and underinclusive and one of the most convoluted and constitutionally disabled statutes that ever existed. Its holes aren't like Swiss cheese; it's like a donut." –Rose, opening statements
"To be blunt, we fire people on the spot who don't follow the age-limit policy." –Rose on the steps taken to punish stores not enforcing age limits
"If Call of Duty ever fell under the 'restricted' category, no stores would want to sell it, and it consequently wouldn't be made anymore. End of story." —Rose on whether Activision Blizzard could cope with Call of Duty becoming a restricted game
"I believe the Supreme Court will be concerned with trying to decide this case without being too broad. Essentially, the vagueness of this entire issue is very troubling. What is an image when you think about a game? Is a zombie a human image? Is an animal with humanoid characteristics a human image?" –McConnell, opening statements
"The Supreme Court isn't likely to say that this kind of statute is constitutional, but I also think they won't go so far as to say that these types of statutes are necessarily unconstitutional. They'll probably strike down this particular case because of vagueness, and then assume a 'wait and see' approach to determine how this kind of media develops, perhaps for a more detailed statute in the future." –McConnell, opening statements
"This country is schizo to begin with. If you consider sexual content, it's quite OK to engage in the actual activity, but it's totally the opposite to display it on TV. Is there a culture of violence? More importantly, I would be more concerned with what my child sees on the nightly news than in some game. I think my kid is quite capable in differentiating between a virtual and a real human being." –Rose on if he's concerned with games contributing to America's "culture of violence"
"That sounds simplistic. These are nuanced issues that require balancing. At the end of the day, I don't think there will be a broad, sweeping decision by the Supreme Court. We as a society are trying to find the best way to raise our kids in a media-centric world, while respecting the freedoms of speech and creativity at the same time." –Steyer on why the government should be involved in any capacity
"I disagree with this whole notion of games being the only interactive form of media. I consider all works of literature to be interactive. If you're reading them, and being involved with them on a mental level, then it's probably one of the most interactive activities you can engage in. No game can compare to works of literature or works of art in terms of interactivity. To say that pressing a button on a joystick makes a game special is a very oversimplified way of looking at games and art as a whole." —Rose on the interactive nature of games