Testimony Submitted by Dan Jarvis

Senate Judiciary Committee, April 26, 2005

Regarding Senate Bill 416

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 416. My name is Dan Jarvis, I am the Research and Policy Director of Michigan Family Forum.

Over the past two years our organization has studied the issue of violent video games. We are aware of numerous efforts by local municipalities and states to regulate the sale of violent video games to minors. We are also aware that federal courts have declared these efforts unconstitutional. And yet, we urge you to push this legislation forward with the firm belief that eventually a state will hit on the right formula to withstand constitutional challenges. After examining other ordinances and statutes, we believe that SB 416 comes closer than any other effort to finding that formula.

I need to start my testimony by addressing the title of the bill, rather than the content. When we get calls from parents, they ask for legislation to help them make sure that their children aren’t buying items that they don’t want them to buy. Parents do not want the government to usurp their role, they simply want help to make sure a store is not undermining their authority. I would change the first sentence of the title to read "A bill to enforce the natural and fundamental right of parents to regulate the purchase of ultra-violent explicit matter by their minor children." This change puts the correct focus on the right of parents, rather than on prohibiting material from children.

We applaud the sponsor of this bill for correctly addressing the issue as one that deals with matter that is "harmful to minors" rather than focusing on the content of video games. As recently as September of last year, a federal district judge upheld an Act that passed through this very committee when she ruled that "states have a long-established, compelling interest in regulating subjects concerning minor’s well-being." While that particular case dealt with the display of obscenity, it is a reminder that the First Amendment does not give unlimited protection. It is also a reminder that you have full authority to pass reasonable measures to protect minors.

The consensus in the scientific community, though not unanimous, increasingly recognizes that violent media is harmful to minors. In July of 2000, six prominent medical groups (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association) issued a joint statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children to Congress. In their statement, they make reference to over 1,000 scientific

studies and governmental reports that overwhelmingly point to a causal connection between media and violent or aggressive behavior.

While we are in no position to provide the committee with copies of the 1,000 studies and reports, we would be happy to provide the Chair of the committee with as many recent scientific studies as he feels is appropriate to convince the skeptics.

We also believe that the restrictions on display are reasonable. They allow establishments to display and sell mature video games in a way that gives adults full access to them. The methods of display are sufficiently broad to allow merchants with different situations to comply with the requirements and they do not place an undue burden on those commercial interests.

If gaming technology and violent content have not already crossed the line of protected speech, it is only a matter of time. When that happens, lawmakers in some state will craft legislation that withstands constitutional scrutiny. We believe this legislation may well be the balanced compromise that courts will uphold.

We do have a couple of thoughts for the committee to consider, although I emphasize that we do support the legislation in its current form. First, the courts make a clear distinction between civil and criminal penalties when the First Amendment is at issue. Obviously, laws that provide criminal penalties will cause people to steer well clear of violations and may have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. Civil penalties are less likely to have as far-reaching an effect on protected speech. Sec. 3 paragraph 6 & 7 and Sec. 6 paragraph 5 provide for criminal penalties. We also question why displaying ultra-violent matter is a misdemeanor while disseminating it is initially a civil infraction. It seems like dissemination is more at issue than displaying it.

The committee may also want to consider applying the legislation to an age lower than that currently in the bill. The courts have long recognized that furthering a legitimate governmental interest may exist where a 10 year old is concerned whereas it does not exist for a 16 year old. Young adolescents are clearly in a different developmental stage from a 16 year old who can legally drive, work and even drop out of school. Even if this legislation applied to minors under the age of 15, we believe the courts would look at it in a different light. We also believe the public will view it differently when critics are forced to describe a 14 year old rather than a 16 year old when they discuss the bill.

Again, Thank you for the opportunity to voice our support for SB 416

Respectfully submitted,

Dan Jarvis

Research and Policy Director