“These kids today and their violent [blank]….” This refrain has
been around for as long as there have been kids — and elders
to shake their fists at them. In the 19th century, dime novels and
“penny dreadfuls” were blamed for social ills and juvenile
delinquency. In the 1950s, psychologist Fredric Wertham’s attack on
comic books — in his bluntly titled book Seduction of the
Innocent — so ignited the national ire that Congress
held hearings on the cartoon menace. In response, the comic book
industry voluntarily adopted a ratings system. Similarly, backlash
against the movie industry and the music industry (e.g.,
Tipper Gore’s attack on gangsta rap) caused those respective
industries to also adopt voluntary ratings systems. And the
videogame industry too adopted an effective and responsive ratings
system after congressional hearings in the early ’90s. Thinking
this ratings system ineffective, however, California passed a
violent videogame law, which prohibits minors from purchasing games
that are deemed “deviant,” “patently offensive,” and lacking in
artistic or literary merit. The gaming industry challenged the
California law and the Ninth Circuit struck it down on First
Amendment grounds. California now seeks to overturn the lower
court’s ruling by arguing that violent videogames deserve an
exemption from First Amendment protection. Cato’s brief highlights
not only the oft-repeated and oft-overblown stories of the
“seduction of the innocent,” but the less-repeated stories of the
effectiveness and preferability of industry self-regulation. We
show that not only does self-regulation avoid touchy First
Amendment issues but that entertainment industries take
self-regulation very seriously. Moreover, evidence from the Federal
Trade Commission shows that the existing videogame ratings system
works more effectively than any other regulatory method. Adding a
level of governmental control, even if were constitutional, would
be counterproductive.
