Gaming has been a hot topic in politics for some time now, with a number of states trying (and failing) to put restrictions on the sale of violent video games. It's also been touched on in the presidential campaign. The ESA has responded by talking about making campaign contributions as a way to fight legislation on the sale of games, among other issues. The Parents Television Council ("Because Our Children Are Watching") has already begun to fight back. "Let me be clear of our intentions," PTC president Tim Warner wrote in a press release. "Any public servant who cashes a check from the video game industry will be exposed by the PTC as taking a stand against families, and his or her actions will be communicated to constituents in his or her congressional district."

Ars Technica had a chance to talk with Gavin McKiernan, PTC's national grassroots director about Warner's strong words. "The political issue that has the greatest likelihood of being discussed by legislators is also the one that the ESA has expended a great deal of time and money on, and that is to prevent laws that would assist parents in protecting their children from adult entertainment," McKiernan told Ars. "The ESA's contributions will be overwhelmingly based on this issue and their stance on this issue is one that is opposed to the interests of families."

It was time to ask the obvious question: why focus on games? The FTC has found that children are for more likely to be able to buy R-rated movies than M-rated games, so why fight so hard for legislation on the smaller issue? "We frequently hear from our members and parents that keeping violent video games out of their children's hands is a top priority," McKiernan replied. "And the evidence is conclusive: countless independent studies confirm that repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long term effect on children."

Well, actually the evidence is anything but conclusive. In fact, there has never been a conclusive study about the effects of gaming content on children. A recent meta-analysis of the body of research concluded that there doesn't seem to be a link. Other research simply points out there have not been any solid conclusions at all.

We do know that linking violence and gaming is an attractive option for people looking for answers to the very troubling question of youth violence, but it's proving to be a harder sell than the PTC would like to admit. "It is not hard to 'link' video game playing with violent acts if one wishes to do so, as one video game playing prevalence study indicated that 98.7 percent of adolescents play video games to some degree," noted one researcher in the meta-analysis study.

Trying to get legislation passed that would "assist" parents in keeping adult entertainment away from children has proven to be an uphill battle, and it won't be any different for the PTC; laws have been attempted and have failed in California, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and in many other states. As Ars has noted before, the "courts have spoken clearly and unanimously: video games are protected by the First Amendment and singling them out for regulation violates the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment."

The PTC is not discouraged by these past defeats. "These laws have been struck down on relatively narrow premises, and the opinions have fallen into two basic lines of reasoning," McKiernan argued. "The first being that the laws were too vague in their definition of what would be prohibited or restricted or that they developed new definitions that the state was not in a position to create and or interpret. The second being that some justices felt that there was not sufficient evidence at the time of the hearing to show clear harm to minors as a result of playing certain types of games."

The PTC claims that it can prove the violence and gaming link in court, but we've already seen how contradictory the research in this area has been. The other issue, the vagueness of what would be prohibited, is the big hurdle, and is another reason why games have been given free speech protection in every case. "Because the (Illinois law) potentially criminalizes the sale of any game that features exposed breasts, without concern for the game considered in its entirety or for the game’s social value for minors, distribution of God of War is potentially illegal, in spite of the fact that the game tracks the Homeric epics in content and theme," the judges wrote when striking down the Illinois law.

In other words, the context of the sex and violence needs to considered, not just that the sex and violence exists. This is the case with every other protected work of art, including movies and the written word. In the case of the Illinois law, the state had to dip into their welfare programs to pay for the defeat, a setback that was sadly predictable.

"Video games, like many other forms of media, have great potential as teaching tools and to entertain and bring families and people together," McKiernan said when asked about the high number of families who enjoy gaming together, and the mainstream acceptance of the hobby. "Our members' greatest concern is with violent video games that can be purchased by children because there currently are no legal ramifications for retailers who sell 'M' or 'AO' rated games to minors.

"We limit the sale of firearms, cigarettes and alcohol to minors because of their obvious detrimental effects. We have reasonable age restrictions for operating motor vehicles. We should employ similar logic and reason with other products that repeatedly have been proven to be harmful to children," McKiernan concluded.

The Parents Television Council has its mind firmly made up: violent video games are harmful to those under 18, and the sales of those games to minors should be made a crime. Unfortunately, the PTC is giving the concept of parental oversight and responsibility short shrift in its quest for retail legislation.