Video Game Censorship and Human Rights

[BlindJustice]

Here is an email I sent to the UN Office of Human Rights.

To whom it may concern,

I have noticed that several countries are trying to censor video games based on their content. Examples include the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Australia. Politicians in these countries think that video games are not protected speech and that they need to "protect" children from games that they shouldn't be playing in the first place. It's perfectly acceptable for adults to play these games, which is why there are rating systems in place. Some countries, such as Great Britain, Germany, and Australia, have rating systems that are controlled by the government. This is, in my opinion, a violation of human rights. Governments should not be permitted to govern how people entertain themselves unless the method they choose is dangerous to others. I believe that video games, no matter how graphic, are not dangerous to others. This is because the characters depicted are fictional. Last year, the British Board of Film Classification outright banned Manhunt 2 because they believed it was too violent. After the developers appealed their case and won, the BBFC dug in their heels and appealed to the High Court, which sided with them. The final authority went to the Video Appeals Committee, which handled the developers' appeal the first time, where the BBFC was forced to give the game the appropriate rating. In Germany, the problem goes back to the original Wolfenstein 3D. The game depicted a captured American soldier in World War II escaping from a German castle. The game was banned because there were swastikas in it. For more information on what Germany is doing now to censor video games, go to www.gamepolitics.com. I hope that something can be done to stop this excessive censorship before it can spread to other media.

What do you think of this? I feel that it is their obligation to stop the censorship of video games because it could possibly spread to other forms of media.

[beemoh]

While the sentiment here is a valid one, I think you may have shot yourself in the foot somewhat- and this is a mistake a lot of people make- by going "oh my god the games the games" a bit too quickly- and the end looks a little bit more like spam for GP.

Giving film equal- or greater- weighting in such correspondence would give the overall message a lot more value- the emergence of a whole new artform does give a great and rare opportunity to look at media censorship as a whole, but that does mean you have to take the rest of the media into account.

[BlindJustice]

Well, how would you have done this? I'm open to suggestions on how to better get my point across. I could use some assistance with the rewrite of this email.

[GamesLaw]

It's very difficult to censor video games in the U.S. for two reasons:

There are two potential censors: the state, and the market. In the U.S., we have a free market (more or less), and a free market by its nature abhors censorship and embraces competition. Simply put, when walmart censors a game sale for violent content, some other retailer won't and thus gets walmart's money. So major game sellers are loathe to censor any game because they know the competition won't. It's the classic "prisoner's dilemma" (Wikipedia search the term if you're not a game theory student).

The second major censor is the state. In the U.S., we have a strong protection against state censorship in the form of the U.S. Constitution. The 1st Amendment prevents the state from making laws and taking actions that would restrict speech (which includes games, this has been clearly defined by the courts) based on content. For instance, you cannot pass a law that restricts violent content in a game, because that is content-based speech restriction. The exceptions to this rule are very narrow and as far as I am aware do not apply to any game out there with the sole exception of nudity restrictions in games (which don't actually ban the nudity, just ban it's exposure to minors).

So arguing that the U.S. censors games is a bit misleading; in fact, we're one of the most free societies with regards to gaming. For instance, unlike Germany, we don't censor games that have swastikas, or racial slurs. Unlike Australia, we don't censor games that have drug content in them. And what few restrictions we have are always heavily limited themselves, either applying only to the state, or only to private companies (which, as shown above, in a free market creates easy bypasses).

[BlindJustice]

I wasn't trying to argue that the US censors games, I merely stated that attempts have been made to do so here, and I think that the attempts are noteworthy because they are attempted infringements on the rights of the people to entertain themselves how they wish without the government "coloring" what they see to suit the government's beliefs. It's like the movie "V for Vendetta," in a way. In the movie, the government tells the people who produce TV shows, movies, and music what they can and cannot say. This is what come governments, including ours, are trying to do with video games. They are trying to control how people entertain each other. Perhaps I should have included Thailand instead of the US. That may have gotten their attention because Thailand is supposed to be helping with refugees from Burma who have come to Thailand to escape a place with a worse human rights record, when Thailand's isn't much better if you include what they're doing with the killer who allegedly copied GTA.

[cheater87]

Great email. :) I hope they respond you back.

[GamesLaw]

I wasn't trying to argue that the US censors games, I merely stated that attempts have been made to do so here, and I think that the attempts are noteworthy because they are attempted infringements on the rights of the people to entertain themselves how they wish without the government "coloring" what they see to suit the government's beliefs. It's like the movie "V for Vendetta," in a way. In the movie, the government tells the people who produce TV shows, movies, and music what they can and cannot say. This is what come governments, including ours, are trying to do with video games. They are trying to control how people entertain each other. Perhaps I should have included Thailand instead of the US. That may have gotten their attention because Thailand is supposed to be helping with refugees from Burma who have come to Thailand to escape a place with a worse human rights record, when Thailand's isn't much better if you include what they're doing with the killer who allegedly copied GTA.

Again, it's misleading to say the US attempts to censor games. The U.S. attempts nothing of the sort. Politicians, usually in state government, attempt to do so -- federal censorship of games is significantly more rare, and judicial oversight ensures that in almost no situation does it succeed.

The UN office of human rights has more pressing issues to deal with: while censorship is a serious concern, legislative attempts by U.S. state legislatures pale in comparison to human rights abuses such as mass genocide in Sudan, racism and political killings in Zimbabwe, and use of child slave labor in the diamond trade in Sierra Leone. Just to name a few.

[BlindJustice]

It's equally misleading to say that the US government isn't trying to censor games, because attempts have been made, and they are still noteworthy although these attempts have failed. I feel that my side of the arguement is being ignored, and that the naysayers are "dodging the issue." If governments censor video games, what's next? Will Net Neutrality be the next victim? I asked for ways I could improve my arguement, and I feel that the majority of people who responded to me did not want to deal with this issue, which the ECA was supposed to adress. We're supposed to be advocating gamers' rights.

[kurisu7885]

I'd say another facet to this issue would be that, frankly, in my opinion, politicians in thier own statements when trying to justify banning video games are basically saying their future and even present voters are far too stupid to think for themselves

[GamesLaw]

It's equally misleading to say that the US government isn't trying to censor games, because attempts have been made, and they are still noteworthy although these attempts have failed. I feel that my side of the arguement is being ignored, and that the naysayers are "dodging the issue." If governments censor video games, what's next? Will Net Neutrality be the next victim? I asked for ways I could improve my arguement, and I feel that the majority of people who responded to me did not want to deal with this issue, which the ECA was supposed to adress. We're supposed to be advocating gamers' rights.

I disagree. It is not misleading to say that the US government is trying to censor games. They're not; it's not a monolithic entity. Individual congressmen and state legislators are but they are not the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government, as a singular entity, is actively protecting against censorship via the 1st amendment.

It's not that we're not wanting to deal with the issue; it's that we (or at least I) think that you are mistaken on your fundamental points. You can't ask the ECA to address something they don't believe is an issue.