Video Games Win: Fatality

This ruling is not surprising to anyone who followed the case and the series of appeals that lead us to it.  However, some of the coverage of the ruling (such as the above) may not be interpreting it correctly.  To understand the nuances of the justices’ opinions on this matter, it’s worthwhile (if challenging) to read the official court opinion (PDF).  Justice Scalia’s majority opinion is the most pro-game of the series and, to me, the most logical, as it compares video game hysteria to hysteria surrounding dime novels and other once-new media, compares video game violence to violence in classic fairy tales, and mentions the role of parents and their judgement in restricting what content children experience.

Justice Alito, below him, has an opinion where he backs the majority vote, but for different reasons. It’s basically saying: I sort of agree, but.  “In some of these games, the violence is astounding.”  There’s points awarded for creative mutilations (this would have been hyperbole a few years ago but is not anymore).  And Alito says the studies about their effects are inconclusive…  in other words, Alito is in favor of restricting this material, but the California law itself was the problem, not having defined the restricted material clearly enough.

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart also had something interesting to say about this ruling.

I was surprised to see this. This is what prompted me to want to write again about this topic.  The Daily Show generally has a tech-savvy, young audience and that audience is probably largely in favor of the ruling.  When he cringes exaggeratedly at Mortal Kombat, Stewart is showing an unusually “old man”-like response.  (Later in the broadcast he did admit to playing the game and that it is fun.  (It is.))

I’d like to say something about the clip they chose to illustrate the level of violence in the game. First of all, though we were verbally warned: they were allowed to show it on the show without censoring it.  Second of all, Stewart talks about how it would only be bannable if the woman in question suffered a “nip-slip” while being disemboweled. Fair enough…

You can definitely see Sheeva’s nipples while she’s being disemboweled, which doesn’t change the rating on the game.  (This is the kind of observation you come to this blog for, right?)  In fact, Duke Nukem Forever (about which I may write more later) is basically wall-to-wall nipples in some portions and only received an M rating.  California’s law would also have no problem at all with Sheeva being disemboweled in this manner.  The law restricts the sale of games that “depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.”  I don’t see any human beings in that segment of the clip, do you? I see a ninja ghost and a Shokan.  Totally legit.

And that in a nutshell is why the law had to be struck down.  Because it comes from a place that doesn’t entirely understand video games in the first place.  Because it has too many loopholes, since it relies on the sticky word “human” which creators of fantasy universes can easily bypass.  Even if you feel as if the law does have a right to restrict access to this material, it’s going to be next to impossible for any legislature to write a law carefully worded enough to cover all the situations that the common person would consider offensive without leaving any holes.  And even if you think there’s no justifying the obscene violence in Mortal Kombat, this kind of law can have a chilling effect across other aspects of the media.

The real problem with censorship in America isn’t that we’re too easy on violence. It’s that we’re too puritanical on sex, which makes extreme violence the more accessible taboo.  The Adults Only rating given out to a very small minority of games is the kiss of death for those titles, unless they were planning on selling the game as a specialty porn game anyway.  The difference between “people under the age of 17 shouldn’t purchase this game” and “people under the age of 18 shouldn’t purchase this game” is also the difference in whether or not the game can be carried in Wal-Mart.  I would really like to know what magical thing happens between the ages of 17 and 18 where violence is OK for just one year but sex still is not.  (I know that, for whatever silly reason, Manhunt 2 almost got an AO for violence alone, until the takedowns were censored a touch.  That seems really odd given the fact that the game showed above is still an M.  The AO/M line is really weird, which is a topic I’m sure I’ll return to.)

I’ve said before that I felt we needed games like Bulletstorm and Duke Nukem to keep pushing the envelope, until video games’ opponents were so worn down that they had nothing more to say.  In the end it was Mortal Kombat – again – that ended up taking that baton and running.  And, why wouldn’t it?  It’s perfect because the title has been around for so long, already associated with over-the-top violence and gore for almost ten years.  Even someone who knows nothing about video games can understand it.  By contrast, Duke Nukem Forever had mainstream controversy prior to its release, but when it actually hit stores, it was only controversial among the video game press.  Mainstream media didn’t pay attention to it.

Leland Yee, who worked in drafting California’s law, vows to keep trying.  Some of the Supreme Court justices may back him in his attempts.  However, no matter what the Daily Show may pretend to be astonished by, I think this ruling means: it’s over. Sexual game content may still prove controversial at times, but it’s very inconsistently monitored and mentioned; the gaming press is itself still divided about it. But in the USA, it’s too hard to restrict violent content, the laws won’t stick, and games are now less of an easy bipartisan scapegoat.