Rhode Island wants to lose money and a court case, too

The Rhode Island Senate is apparently considering a bill to criminalize the sale of M-rated video games to minors (GamePolitics, PDF of the bill) In fact, knowingly selling to a minor could be punished by up to a year in jail (PS, selling alcohol to minors only gets you a fine).

Given other states' (Minnesota, California) successes in passing similar laws, I've decided to save Rhode Island a few thousand dollars by talking them out of it. I'm not a RI resident, so I don't have a specific representative to email... so I just went straight to the top, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed.

Dear Pres. Paiva Weed,

I am not one of your constituents, nor even a resident of Rhode Island. However, I felt the need to express my concern over the bill S.2156, which would criminalize the sale of violent or sexually explicit games to minors. There are four important points I feel both you and your fellow senators who have backed this bill should consider:

First, the Parent Television Council recently announced its support of this bill, citing "far-too-frequent" noncompliance by retailers. However, a 2008 study by the FTC found that of all entertainment sales to minors, games had the best denial rate - 80%, vs. 65% for movie theaters and 50% for unrated or R-rated videos (LINK). This percentage has only improved in recent years, and there is no reason to believe that trend will not continue. All major retailers have policies in place to deny sales of M-rated games to minors.

Secondly, while studies have sought to link violent games with such issues as violent behavior, aggressiveness, bullying, and desensitization; no study has ever shown causality and links that have been shown tend to be tenuous or - worse - the result of biased research or faulty methods. While tragedies like Columbine tend to draw news stories claiming the shooters played or even "trained on" video games, the fact is that most children and young adults play games. A better indicator of a problem might be that the person does not engage in the social act of gaming, as was the case of the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007.

Time and again, psychological evaluations have found issues such as depression, anxiety, family trouble, etc. to be a far better barometer for violent behavior than gaming. The simple fact is that most children and young adults play games, and are not adversely affected by them.

Third, there is the simple constitutionality of the bill. Many state legislatures have implemented bills that sought to criminalize the sale of M-rated games to minors; every single one has been overturned as unconstitutional, usually at great expense to the state. In these economically troubled times, pursuing this bill is simply fiscally unsound.

Lastly, I hope you agree that no legislation can or should take the place of sound parenting. ESRB game ratings, like movie ratings (which are not legislatively enforced), are designed to be a guideline for parents to make informed decisions about what their children experience. A 2007 FTC report showed approximately 90% of parents were aware of the ESRB system, considered it easy to understand, and used it when making purchasing decisions for their children (LINK). Rather than invest state funds into a bill that will undoubtedly dissolve after a costly legal battle, why not use that money to further improve awareness of a ratings system that already works?

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and I hope I have persuaded you and Sens. Ciccone, Jabour, Lanzi, and McCaffrey to take a second, more scrutinizing look at this bill.