Censorship and regulation Video game controversies

support video game regulation has been linked moral panic. so, governments have enacted, or have tried enact, legislation regulates distribution of video games through censorship based on content rating systems or banning. in 2005, david gauntlett claimed grant funding, news headlines, , professional prestige more commonly go authors who, in faith, promote anti-media beliefs. tom grimes, james a. anderson, , lori bergen reiterated these claims in 2008 book examining sociological effects on production of media effects research.

in 2013, entertainment software association, lobbying group video games industry, had enlisted on 500,000 members video game voters network, grassroots lobbying group mobilize gamers act against public policy may negatively impact gaming industry. vgv launched in 2006 esa, , uses social media sites facebook , twitter inform members of allies , opponents. in 2013, esa spent on 3.9 million usd on lobbying, including not limited against vvg legislation. included opposing bipartisan federal bill direct national academy of sciences study effects of forms of violent media. such bills had come under criticisms scholars pressuring scientists find specific outcomes rather studying issues neutrally

video game consoles banned in mainland china in june 2000. ban lifted in january 2014. however, chinese still police video games hostile china or not in conformity outlook of china s government . reported bloomberg, metaphorically speaking, cai wu, head of china s ministry of culture, said want open window crack fresh air, still need screen block flies , mosquitoes. .

voluntary regulation

voluntary rating systems adopted video game industry, such esrb rating system in united states , canada (established in 1994), , pan european game information (pegi) rating system in europe (established in 2003), aimed @ informing parents types of games children playing (or asking play). ratings of controversial games indicate not targeted @ young children ( mature (m) or adults (ao) in us, or 15 or 18 in uk). packaging warns such games should not sold children. in us, esrb ratings not legally binding, many retailers take upon refuse sale of these games minors. in united kingdom (uk), bbfc ratings legally binding. uk retailers enforce pegi ratings, not legally binding.

us government legislation

no video game console manufacturer has allowed game marked ao published in north america; however, pc gaming service steam has allowed ao titles such hatred published on platform. no major retailers willing sell ao-rated games. however, grand theft auto: san andreas rated ao after presence of hot coffee add-on became evident. add-on later removed , game rated m. in 109th congress , 110th congress, video games enforcement act introduced house of representatives. act required identification check purchase of m , ao rated games. bill , others did not succeed because of first amendment violations. although no law mandates identification checking games adult content, 2008 survey federal trade commission showed video game retailers have voluntarily increased id verification m- , ao-rated games, , sales of games underage potential buyers decreased 83% in 2000 20% in 2008. further survey in april 2011, found video game retailers continued enforce ratings allowing 13% of underage teenage shoppers buy m-rated video games, statistically significant decrease 20% purchase rate in 2009.

on 7 january 2009, joe baca, representative of california s 43rd district, introduced h.r. 231, video game health labelling act. bill called label placed in clear , conspicuous location on packaging on video games esrb rating of t (teen) or higher stating, warning: excessive exposure violent video games , other violent media has been linked aggressive behavior. proposed legislation referred subcommittee on commerce, trade , consumer protection. on 24 january 2011, joe baca reintroduced video game health labelling act h.r. 400 of 112th congress. bill once again passed onto subcommittee.

on 27 june 2011, supreme court of united states ruled on brown v. entertainment merchants association. video games protected speech under first amendment. case centered on california law sought restrict sales of violent video games minors. video game industry, led entertainment merchants association , entertainment software association, obtained injunction on bill, believing definition of violence stated in california law vague , not treat video games protected speech. opinion upheld in lower courts, , supported supreme court s decision. majority of justices did not consider studies brought attention convincing evidence of harm, , stated not create new class of restricted speech not applied other forms of media. however, justice breyer s minority decision found evidence more convincing.

deana pollard sacks, brad bushman, , craig a. anderson objected ruling, claiming thirteen experts authored statement on video game violence on brown side considerably more academically merited, , had on average authored on 28 times many peer-reviewed journal articles aggression/violence based on original empirical research signatories supporting ema, whereas on 100 signatories supporting brown had on average authored on 14 times many. richard hall, ryan hall, , terri day replied: not surprising anderson , bushman found own qualifications , qualifications of agree them superior qualifications of disagree them , , claimed might have used methodology have undercounted contributions of scholars. on 3 april 2013, dianne feinstein, californian senator , democrat, spoke in san francisco group of 500 constituents gun violence. said video games have negative role young people, , industry ought take note of , congress might have step in if video games industry did not cease glorify guns.