In order for the ESA and the State of California to come to an agreement, I believe that both sides will need to figure out a true definition of what constitutes as “violent.” Wikipedia defines violence as “the expression of physical or verbal force against one or more people.” This is an incredibly broad concept because some people may view the tackling in Madden to be overly violent. Now, that is obviously an extreme case, but it shows how the proposed law could be twisted to fit certain people’s personal grudges or political agendas. In fact, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia asked the state if they were going to ban children from reading Grimm’s fairy tales because they are violent too.
If they can agree on a true definition of violence, then they have to compromise on how the games are sold to children that are underage. The video game industry already has a ratings system in place for games that describe the age group that the game is intended for as well as the content that is included. Retailers already have rules in place that restrict the sale of 'Mature' rated video games to people who are 17 years of age or older; just like how movie theaters are not allowed to sell a ticket to a 'R' rated movie to someone under 17. I believe that if the 'M' rated titles were placed on a higher shelf or put somewhere where the average minor will not look for it, then it will greatly reduce the number of children who dupe their parents into purchasing inappropriate content for them. Plus, the less kids that get their hands on the new 'Call of Duty' or any other popular game greatly reduces my chance of annoyance while playing online. Those ten year olds with their squeaky, annoying voices are so irritating.
