Also known as AB 1179, California’s “violent games law” was passed back in 2005. In short, the bill stipulated that “all violent games be required to have a large ’18’ sticker placed on [the] cover,” as well as imposing a fine of $1,000 on retailers “for selling such games to minors.” It was an immensely popular bill in California, as well, with over 70% of parents America-wide expressing support for it.

For those familiar with United States constitutional law, however, AB 1179 should raise some concerns, especially regarding First Amendment (freedom of expression) rights.

And not surprisingly, since being passed, AB 1179 has come under a series of court challenges. The 9th Circuit Court struck the law down last year, but California’s government (and in particular, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pressed ahead with a Supreme Court challenge.

You’d be surprised just how many different groups have filed amicus briefs against the law and sided with the respondent in the court case, the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA). It’s not just names from the electronics industry (although Activision Blizzard, Microsoft, and a few other gaming companies are on the list), but also various civil rights associations and interest groups from everywhere along the political spectrum.

I’m not an American citizen myself, so I don’t really have a horse in this race, but for what it’s worth I can’t say I agree with AB 1179. Don’t get me wrong: I am (as a parent) in favour of children not being exposed to certain forms of content before they achieve a certain maturity, but I’m leery of handing over to the state the power to legislate and control such things. In fact, just as a general rule, I tend to think the state should be minimally involved in anything to do with child-rearing.

I maintain that keeping children from playing violent video games before they are morally and intellectually mature enough to separate in-game violence from the real world is one of the many responsibilities parents accept and must discharge. Because really, a child who has been raised well can learn fairly early on in life to separate violence in games from the real world in which he operates at other times.

Granted, not all parents raise their children well. That’s the ugly reality of the imperfect world in which we live. But is imposing undue and perhaps unconstitutional restrictions on game sales really the way to address that issue? To me, at least, that sounds like a case of solving the wrong problem.

But again, I’m not an American, so all I can do is sit here on the sidelines and muse.

Feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments.

Update: Granted, the violence in some games does seem…er…unnecessarily “over the top.”