EFF Says Supreme Court Ruling on Videogame Violence May Affect Virtual Worlds Accessible to Minors

The Senior Staff Attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation believes the Supreme Court's current deliberation on a California law regulating the sale of violent video games to minors may also impact virtual worlds that are accessible to minors. "I think the threshold question is whether virtual worlds equal video games," EFF's Lee Tien told me yesterday through a media spokeswoman for the venerable online civil rights organization. The statute fines retailers for selling extremely violent videogames to minors, but the definition of video game is so broad that (in my reading) it would seem to include online virtual worlds. "Of course," added Tien, "even if the statute doesn't strictly cover virtual worlds like Second Life, the Supreme Court could in upholding the statute (which I don't think will happen) articulate a principle that reaches beyond video games."

In any case, he went on, EFF's reason for opposing the statute "was the concern about how it might spread to the Internet and any other interactive media, e.g. more age verification."

But do virtual worlds qualify as a videogame, under the statute's definition? Read Tien's analysis after the break, and decide for yourself:

In the statute, he said, "'Video game' means any electronic amusement device that utilizes a computer, microprocessor, or similar electronic circuitry and its own monitor, or is designed to be used with a television set or a computer monitor, that interacts with the user of the device.

"The next question is whether the virtual worlds are 'violent'. The Act defines a 'violent video game' as one that depicts 'killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being' in a manner that meets all of the following requirements: (1) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find that it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors; (2) it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors, and; (3) it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

I asked Lee to elaborate further, but he had to leave for a Washington D.C. meeting. I'm not a lawyer like Lee Tien, but it seems likely that a realistically violent MMO such as APB would fall under the statute, while a virtual world like Second Life, which has extremely violent content but also clear instances of serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value, would not. But then, regulators might not see it that way. In any case, as Tien says, the Supreme Court doesn't seem likely to uphold the statute. (And surprisingly enough, the ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia is the statute's biggest opponent.) But we shall see. Read more about the EFF's take on the statute here.

Image credit: Olivier Douliery / Abaca Press / MCT

Comments

[LokiLoki]

Seeing as the goals in SL are created by what you bring with you into SL, i cant see how SL can be effected by this act. Providing a platform for people to create their own worlds and content has to be completely different to selling specifically ultra violent video games surely?

[Ann Otoole InSL]

I know you will censor this but don't you remember that SL requires you be account verified over 18 to go places where such violent content might be available? LL requires such violent content to be rated adult. Property owners are liable for their content. If those factors make it into the proceedings then the video game industry may be doomed since it shows LL already censors such content.

I guess SL is safe since SL already has in place a ratings system and access control systems to deal with it.

Sorry if it pops your bubble of doom. But that is the facts.

[Ignatius Onomatopoeia]

Drop a piano on those regulators of the Nanny State, Mario!

Wow...I sound so GOP saying that.

But it's nice to see Scalia, with whom I rarely agree, reinforce the idea that conservatism does not equal puritanism. Way to go, Antonin!

Seriously, folks. My father said "no" to my seeing Planet of the Apes in 1968, when I was at a tender age. What happened to parents just saying "you cannot have/do that while you live under my roof, kid?"

[Adeon Writer]

I go by the Penny-Aracde coined term "A Policy Of Conscious Aggression" - If elements of a game (in this case, Second Life) only exist because the users thought them up and created it, it's not the game's fault.

Linden Lab hasn't created a single violent, adult, or offensive bit of content in their world.

It's why you can have a game where suicidal moms kill themselves, abusive dads beat up their children, and dingos eat babies. Sound horrible? It's in a game that's rated E for Everyone by Nintendo. (Super Scribblenauts). And that's fine - because the game only has those kinds of things if you manage to think them up and want to put it into the game.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

While I doubt that any action brought against Second Life would stand, the risk and expense of defending against such actions could be the death knell for any world that doesn't regulate violence.

I'm concerned about a regulatory climate in which the burden of proof is on the game producer to establish redeeming merit.

With the abolishment of the teen grid and the opening of SL on a limited basis to under-18 individuals, there is the potential for the further censorship of the platform on a 'voluntary' basis to head off legal action.

I don't want to be the defense lawyer when the prosecution shows a video of one player impaling another on a spit and roasting them over a slow fire.