VSDA Releases Statement On Senate Game Hearing

The industry association the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) has issued a copy of the statement made by its President, Crossan Anderson, at yesterday's Senate hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, which included witnesses from both sides of the debate surrounding violence in video games. The VSDA represents U.S. video retail outlets, and has been allied alongside the game-related trade organizations the ESA and IEMA in a number of suits against State-based violent game bills, since it represents stores that might be financially or criminally liable if these laws are enacted. In the statement, Crossan starts by noting that: "VSDA opposes the enactment of laws restricting minors’ access to motion pictures and video games based on the depictions of violence in them because we are committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of retailers and their customers. The association’s advocacy is not driven by abstract legal theories or economic calculations." In fact, it's suggested that the VSDA's advocacy: "...is propelled by the recognition that video games and other forms of entertainment can educate, amuse, inspire, challenge, and bring people together and that society is invigorated if individuals and families can decide for themselves, without the interference of government, what they shall see, read, hear, and play." The VSDA has a particular concern that a number of these state-based laws "...provide no meaningful standards that would permit a conscientious retailer or clerk to know which video games are covered by the restrictions", explaining: "Video games are complex, multi-layered, non-linear stories in which the players control the action, and thus the narrative of the game. It is impossible for a clerk to know every depiction that can appear in the numerous variations of every video game on the shelves of their store." In fact, the Association argued, it's the unique make-up of games which makes restricting them on violent ground so difficult: "The task is complicated by the fantastic nature of many video game characters. Aliens, zombies, supernatural beings, and other creatures that combine imaginary and human-like characteristics are common. Characters can appear to die or suffer grievous injuries, but reappear later with no apparent harm. Yet the challenged laws would apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games, an environment in which they have no meaning." The VSDA ends its official statement to the Senate subcommittee by suggesting that sensible parenting is the correct course of action here, making a particularly clear point to conclude: "The fact that parents can and do “censor” their children does not mean the government can step in if legislators believe some parents are engaging in “inappropriate child rearing,” as reportedly asserted by the sponsor of one of the state video game restriction laws. Not every parent will get it right every time. But only parents can effectively make the individual judgments needed to raise youth to become responsible citizens."