The Vital Role of First Amendment for Video Game Industry

Video games are entertaining, a way to express creativity, challenging, and most of all being censored! Throughout the late nineteenth century to the present time there have been many technological advancements and one such advancement is well known across the world- video games. Video games have become a part of life for many people in the U.S. Adults and kids alike play them, and because of that video games have become the topic of many controversies. Most of these controversies have ceased with time, for example, the controversy that video games rot the brain, but there is one that is a major topic today, the censorship of video game content. Censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable or a threat to security”. However, when censorship is used to take away the creators’ abilities to express themselves, problems begin to occur with constitutional rights. The right in mention is that of the first amendment, the freedom of speech. So, when major video game publishers and government agencies censor games based on what is considered ‘out of line’ or offensive, the video game companies, and government agencies are threatening the creators’ first amendment rights. This includes the censoring of any part of a game, from strong acts of violence to sexual content. Therefore, video game content should not be censored because it violates the first amendment right, the freedom of speech.

To begin, the topic of censoring video game content has been controversial since violent and sexual content first appeared, specifically in “Night Trap” and “Mortal Combat”. In 1993, both games caused major backlash from congress. “Night Trap”, for the Sega CD, was removed from store shelves at Toys “R” Us and F.A.O Schwartz locations in the United States in correlation with the response to a December 9, 1993, joint Senate Judiciary and Government Affairs Committee hearing on video game violence. This is what the Senate Judiciary and Government Affairs Committee ruled. “Night Trap” is cited as “shameful,” “ultra-violent,” “sick,” and “disgusting,” encouraging an “effort to trap and kill women”. However, the goal of the game was not to harm women, it was to save them from harm. Nonetheless, the game was still pulled from store shelves and banned from being owned. The second game to spark the topic of censoring was “Mortal Combat”, which was the first video game to feature realistic and lifelike violence. This caused another outrage in the Senate the same year “Night Trap” was banned. Although “Mortal Combat” was not banned it did open the doors for the formation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) which was created shortly after these controversies just a year later, in 1994. The Entertainment Software Rating Board was formed because of the political backlash on games. Although this might not sound like anything is being censored, there is more to the rating system than meets the eye. Following the formation of the ESRB, video game creators had an option of whether or not to have the age of the game rated or not. However, most stores that sold games would not put unrated games on the store shelves, leading to a majority of video game companies putting games through to be able to sell them in stores. This was a type of censorship because it denied video game creators the right to sell games that were not rated. All in which lead to the violation of the creator’s first amendment right.

Furthermore, not only are government agencies trying to censor video game content, but now some major video game companies are taking control of what is allowed in a video game; forcing the creators to censor certain aspects of their video game content. One example of this is the recently enforced censorship code by Sony’s Censorship Policy. The Sony Corporation of America has implemented a stricter censorship policy that has targeted imported games, for example from Japan, and has denied them the right to have the original content on the games if categorized as too “risqué.” In an interview, a spokeswoman confirmed the existence of a company censorship policy, which they claim has been developed out of the desire to protect children and in response to American societal developments (Sony). This statement by Sony is broad and biased in many ways. For instance, saying that video game content needs to be censored to protect kids when most games that are censored are rated Mature. This not only undermines the adult audience that the games being censored are trying to appeal to, but it also takes away the first amendment right from these independent video game developers that are trying to publish a video game, for example, those working in the American sector of the gaming industry. Sony’s decision to censor games has been highly criticized by the gaming community. A gamer by the username of PurplePin said in a statement pertaining to this, “…It’s up to consumers and adults to buy according to what they believe is appropriate. This is why age ratings exist, why should there be further censorship...”. This also supports that not only do the video game creators not want censorship but the players do not either. Enforcing that video games should not be censored because it impedes on the first amendment right.

However, it is true that some argue that censorship protects kids from seeing inappropriate content. For instance, according to Rachel Bradly: “Various studios found that in comparison to nonviolent or prosocial video games, that violent video games lead to aggression and desensitize players to violence.” There are also studies that show sexual content in video games leads to the over-sexualization of women and men, which is why some video game companies are stricter over censorship. This information might sound good on paper and to those who are pro-censorship, but all of these researched studies have been debunked. One such study from Greitemeyer and Osswald found in their studies on violent video games that they could not find concrete evidence that these types of games lead to aggression or anti-social behavior. The statement that video games affect how people act has yet to be proven, and what is said to be true has not provided definitive evidence; too many variables that are unaccounted for. While I agree that censorship is justified for games catered to a younger audience, that argument cannot justify the censorship of adult games. For example, rated Mature games, when mature games are meant for adults. Therefore, the censorship of games is not serving as a protection for the eyes of children but is instead being used to take away the first amendment right from video game creators that want to express the ideas originally intended for gamers to play and enjoy.

In spite of many government agencies and video game companies that support the censorship of video game content, it should not be censored because it breaks the first amendment right, the freedom of speech. The censorship of video games infringes on the first amendment right by restricting the sales of games and blocking the original content provided by the creator. Now some say that video game censorship protects the youth, however, there is no definitive evidence to support that claim, like from the tests done by Greitemeyer and Osswald. All leads to, that the censorship of video games needs to be prohibited, allowing gamers and creators alike to enjoy a video games complete experience.

Works Cited

1. Hutchful, A. A Timeline of Video Game Controversies. 20 March 2019. 25 September 2019. .
2. Impact of Video game violence on youth . n.d. 26 September 2019. .
3. Lexico Dictionaries. n.d. 25 September 2019. .
4. 'Sony Confirms Existence of Strict Content Censorship Policy Regarding PlayStation 4 Releases.' 23 April 2019. 23 September 2019. .
5. Tear, Morgan J. and Mark Nielson . 'Failure to Demonstrate That Playing Violent Video Games Diminishes Prosocial Behavior.' 3 July 2013. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints . 30 October 2019.