WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior
In justifying their move, the law's sponsors explain themselves through a fine catalog of fearsome media tropes.
- Squishy language about potentials, possibilities: "The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families and to consumers — to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products," Baca said.
- Addiction language: "Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents — and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior," Wolf said.
- Protect the children: "As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games."
Speaking of ambitious, the proposed bill goes beyond attaching the label to games already marked as violent:
The label would have to appear on any game — regardless of whether it is considered violent or not — that is rated "E" for everyone, "E10+" for everyone 10 and older, "T" for teen, "M" for mature or "A" for adult.
The only games excluded from the requirement are those rated "EC," which stands for "early childhood" and applies to games meant for children ages 3 and up.
In other words, "The proposed label would be required even if the video game in question is not violent." (Ars Technica) So it's not really an information campaign aimed at informing consumers about products. Instead it's about using the products as an involuntary information platform for a broader commentary about the entire industry.