Joel E. Collier, Pearson Liddell Jr., and Gloria J. Liddell
Executive Summary
As the popularity of violent video games increases, many concerned parents and legislators are trying to legally restrict the purchase or rental of these adult-oriented games from minors. More than ten states have tried to pass legislation restricting minors’ access to adult-oriented games, and in each attempt, a court has overturned the law as a violation of the First Amendment. Attempts by the government to regulate the content of speech as opposed to the conduct of parties must meet the requirements of the strict scrutiny test. The strict scrutiny test is a two-pronged test. First, there must be a compelling reason for the government action that the law proposes; second, the government must take no more action than is reasonably necessary to remedy the speech content. Thus far, legislation to regulate violent video games has not survived either test. The states have not shown that violent video games cause harm to children (compelling reason), nor have they shown ways to take no more action than necessary because of the inability to define violent behavior.
The authors propose that a more fruitful option might be to legislate the age ratings of games rather than actually restricting minors from the content. Accurate and comprehensive reviews of the video games would inform parents about the content of the game and appropriateness for their child. This alternative would alleviate the First Amendment concerns and provide a solution to parents concerned about the content of a video game. Each state could determine whether certain violent acts warrant a higher age rating, thus giving parents some assurance that their children would not be exposed to certain adult-oriented content.
Biography
Joel E. Collier (PhD, University of Memphis) is an assistant professor in the Department of Marketing, Quantitative Analysis, and Business Law at Mississippi State University. His areas of research are in services marketing, relationship marketing, and marketing research methods. He has previously published in Journal of Service Research, Sloan Management Review, and Marketing Theory.
Pearson Liddell Jr. (PhD, Howard University School of Law) is Associate Professor of Business Law at Mississippi State University. His areas of research pertain to Internet law and free speech implications. Dr. Liddell still engages in private practice of law and has published in the following journals: Journal of Internet Law, Transportation Journal, and American Business Law Journal.
Gloria J. Liddell (PhD, Howard University School of Law) is an Assistant Professor of Business Law at Mississippi State University. Dr. Liddell has engaged in the private practice of law and served as an attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Board. She also serves as an arbitrator for FINRA Dispute Resolution. She has conducted research, made professional presentations, and published in several areas of business law, including marketing pertaining to Internet marketing and free speech implications. Her research can be found in Journal of Internet Law, International Business & Economic Research Journal, Journal of Legal Studies in Business, and Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring 2008
View Table of Contents