The Pennsylvania House of Representatives sat down last Friday to have a serious talk about video game violence, debating what should be done, if anything, about violent games.

Coverage by GamePolitics shows that some of the people speaking at the hearing didn’t really know their topic matter, supporting the argument that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should probably shut up and do a bit more research before saying anything. This is especially due to items 2, 6, 15, and 18, which don’t help me to feel any more confident that these are the people who have the final say in what should be done about violent games (at least in my home state of PA).

Just to warn you, these notes are as hilarious as they are infuriating.

One point raised was that incentives should be provided to game companies to encourage them to refrain from making violent titles. This is similar to something passed in Texas a few years back, offering Texan video game developers grants for their willingness to let the government have the final say regarding their product.

Interestingly enough, one representative drops the idea that a 5% tax should be placed on violent video games, meaning buying a copy of Killzone 2 in Pennsylvania would cost a PA resident about $66.60 after the existing 6% PA sales tax, coincidentally supporting the belief held by many that video games are—in fact—the devil.

The proceeds from the tax would ideally go towards a program to educate parents about video game ratings, though I don’t see this as being necessary considering the majority of gamers are adults over the age of 18 (a 65% majority at that). Though many parents may not have time to study up on all the details of the latest violent game to hit the market, explain to me why we need a program to educate parents about this when it’s readily available on the front and back of every single game. While I certainly don’t expect a parent over 45 t0 to know everything about video games, I think literacy and common sense is about all a person really needs.

I do wonder how this would affect new/used game sales in PA, as I can see many gamers turning their backs to the tax and instead buying games from online merchants such as Amazon or eBay; merchants who don’t necessarily tax purchases and, in many cases, provide free shipping. Amazon, for instance, ships for free if a purchase is over $25—a criteria easily met by most games. Not to mention avoiding an 11% tax on a violent game sounds pretty good to me, considering the recession and all.

I’m sure if this were to be passed, many other states would hop on the bandwagon too. But then the question of “what is violence in a video game” pops up, and now we’re splitting hairs. Technically, Mario, Donkey Kong, and games like Super Smash Bros. all have elements of cartoon violence. Would these be taxed as well?

Of course, the main issues with this tax are the conflicts it would have with the First Amendment, something the PA House of Representatives mentions. Taxing a company’s decision to create violent games singles them out and puts a lot of weight on their right to free expression. It also calls into question what should be done about other questionable media, such as violent movies, books, or music lyrics.

While this isn’t necessarily going to be put into effect any time soon (if at all), the fact that the government is having such discussions should raise some eyebrows, especially after viewing this clip, compliments of GamePolitics:

If you live in PA, or even if you don’t, how do you feel about the idea of a “violence tax”? Even if the profits are used to fund a “parental education program” to teach adults about game ratings, should it be put into effect?

Via GamePolitics.

Popularity: unranked [?]