U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–337 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–479

WHAT’S IN A GAME? REGULATION OF VIOLENT

VIDEO GAMES AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 29, 2006

Serial No. J–109–64

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

AJIT PAI, Majority Chief Counsel 

ROBERT F. SCHIFF, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ....................... 1

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 3

Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 138

WITNESSES 

Bickham, David S., Research Scientist, Center on Media and Child Health, 

Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts ......................................... 12

Carll, Elizabeth K., Chair, Interactive Media Committee, Media Psychology 

Division, American Psychological Association, Long Island, New York .......... 7

Johnson, Hon. Jeff, Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota House of Representatives, Plymouth, Minnesota .................................................................... 23

Saunders, Kevin W., Professor of Law, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan ...................................................................................................... 29

Smith, Paul M., Jenner and Block LLP, Washington, D.C. ................................. 27

Strickland, Steve, Reverend, Fayette County, Alabama ...................................... 5

Vance, Patricia E., President, Entertainment Software Rating Board, New 

York, New York .................................................................................................... 22

Williams, Dmitri, Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Communication, 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois ........................ 10

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Center for Law & Justice, Jay A. Sekulow, Esq., Chief Counsel, 

Stuart J. Roth, Esq., Senior Counsel, Colby M. May, Esq., Director, Washington Office, and Erik Zimmerman, Law Clerk, Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 37

Andersen, Crossan R., President, Video Software Dealers Association, Encino, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 57

Bach, Robert J., President, Entertainment and Devices Division, Microsoft 

Corporation, Redmond, Washington, statement ................................................ 64

Bickham, David S., Research Scientist, Center on Media and Child Health, 

Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, statement ...................... 66

Calvert, Clay, Associate Professor of Communications and Law, Pennsylvania 

State University, State College, Pennsylvania, statement ............................... 72

Carll, Elizabeth K., Chair, Interactive Media Committee, Media Psychology 

Division, American Psychological Association, Long Island, New York, statement and attachments ......................................................................................... 79

Florida Police Chiefs Association, Tallahassee, Florida, resolution .................... 91

Fraternal Order of Police, Mark Koch, President, Pensylvania State Lodge, 

Games and youth violence—independent research findings ignored by APA, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, letter ........................................................................ 92

Gee, James Paul, Tashia Morgridge Professor of Reading, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, statement .............................................. 100

Goldstein, Jeffrey H., Department of Social & Organizational Psychology, 

Utrecht University, The Netherlands, statement .............................................. 110

Horowitz, David, Executive Director of the Media Coalition, statement ............ 127

Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, Hal Halpin, President, Wilton, Connecticut, statement ................................................................................ 132

Johnson, Hon. Jeff, Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota House of Representatives, Plymouth, Minnesota, statement ................................................. 135

Page

IV

Murray, John P., Professor of Developmental Psychology, School of Family 

Studies and Human Services, Kansas State University and Senior Scientist, 

Visiting Scholar, Center on Media and Child Health, Children’s Hospital 

Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, statement and 

attachment ............................................................................................................ 140

Nusbaum, Howard C., Chair, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, statement ....................................................................... 143

Saunders, Kevin W., Professor of Law, Michigan State University College 

of Law, East Lansing, Michigan, statement ...................................................... 153

Smith, Paul M., Jenner and Block LLP, Washington, D.C., statement .............. 158

Sternheimer, Karen, Sociologist, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, statement .................................................................................... 171

Strickland, Steve, Reverend, Fayette County, Alabama, statement ................... 172

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc., Paul Eibeler, 

New York, New York, letter ................................................................................ 174

Thierer, Adam D., Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Digital Media 

Freedom, Progress & Freedom Foundation, Washington, D.C., statement 

and attachment .................................................................................................... 176

Vance, Patricia E., President, Entertainment Software Rating Board, New 

York, New York, statement and attachment ..................................................... 207

Williams, Dmitri, Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Communication, 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, statement ..... 222

Yee, Hon. Leland Y., Speaker Pro Tempore, Assembly Member, Twelfth District, Sacramento, California, statement ............................................................ 234

(1)

WHAT’S IN A GAME? REGULATION OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND THE FIRST 

AMENDMENT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND

PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Brownback, Coburn, and Feingold. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Chairman BROWNBACK. The hearing will come to order. Thank 

you all for joining us here today. I am sorry to be late. We had a 

long caucus discussion on immigration, one of the key hot topics of 

the day. 

I am delighted that the witnesses are here and the people 

present, my colleague, Senator Feingold, who is also interested in 

this issue, and his colleague, Senator Kohl, has been one of the 

leaders on this topic for many years. I follow his lead on it. 

We are here today to discuss the recent developments in State 

efforts to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. We 

have a video that we are going to show briefly here about some of 

the recent games out, some of the cop-killer games that I want people to get a good view of what we are talking about. 

Since 2001, four States and two cities have passed laws restricting minors’ access to violent video games. The video game industry 

successfully challenged each of these laws in Federal court. Four 

district courts and the Seventh and Eighth Circuit Courts have 

granted injunctions barring enforcement of these laws. Despite 

this, 15 other States have introduced similar legislation. I believe 

we have a chart that shows the States that are proceeding down 

this line. 

The courts’ decisions in these cases were primarily based on the 

failure of the States to show a compelling State interest necessary 

to justify the regulations. That is what we want to talk about 

today. Several judges noted past studies which link media violence 

to aggressive behavior in children. They were not convinced, however, that such evidence justified restrictions on minors’ access to 

violent video games. 

2

Because video games are a relatively new medium, studies exploring their effects are still developing. Today we have several witnesses who will discuss recent studies which bolster the call for increased restrictions. 

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. What 

too many in the media industry fail to realize is that this right is 

not without limits, particularly when it comes to minors. The Supreme Court in Sable Communications v. FCC held that, ‘‘The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest. We have 

recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the 

physical and psychological well-being of minors.’’ 

In 2002, the Sixth Circuit held that, ‘‘The protections of the First 

Amendment have always adapted to the audience intended for the 

speech. Specifically, we have recognized certain speech, while fully 

protected when directed to adults, may be restricted when directed 

toward minors.’’ State laws restricting minors’ access to violent 

games do not impair adult access. Adults can continue to buy these 

games for themselves and can provide them to children. The laws 

are only aimed at preventing children from entering stores and 

purchasing the games themselves. However, requiring adults to 

purchase these games will cause parents to think twice, we hope, 

about buying them for their children. 

Thanks to new technology, the violence in today’s video games is 

becoming more graphic, realistic, and barbaric. Today’s video 

games allow players to decapitate and electrocute their opponents, 

beat their victims to death with golf clubs, pin women against 

walls with pitchforks, and have sex with prostitutes before beating 

them to death. 

In Ginsburg v. New York, the Supreme Court upheld a State law 

prohibiting the sale of obscene material to minors. The Court found 

that two compelling State interests were at work: 

First, ‘‘The legislation could properly conclude that parents and 

others—teachers, for example—who have the primary responsibility for children’s well-being, are entitled to the support of laws 

designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.’’ 

Second, the State ‘‘has an independent interest in the well-being 

of its youth.’’ 

These are important interests that may justify regulation on the 

sale of violent video games as well. The State laws passed to date 

target only those games which include extreme violence and gore 

or target police officers. It is with regard to these games that the 

need for parental involvement is so important. 

A number of courts have held that States cannot show a compelling State interest because scientific studies showing a link between the games and real-life violence are lacking. However, many 

psychologists agree that violent games are associated with violence 

in children. The American Psychological Association issued a resolution in November calling for a reduction in violence in video 

games and interactive media. The APA resolution was a result of 

research by its Media Psychology Division, which showed that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts and behavior among 

youth. 

3

Recently, a new group has voiced concern over violent video 

games, and that is police officers. A new video game—‘‘25 to Life’’ 

is the title of the game, shown in a clip that we will show—was 

released in January of this year. In ‘‘25 to Life,’’ players choose the 

role of either a police officer or gang member. If the player chooses 

to be a gang member, the goal is to avoid arrest. Players use guns, 

pipe bombs, tasers, Molotov cocktails, and broken bottles to torture 

and kill. This is not the first cop-killing game to gain national attention. 

One of our witnesses today, Steve Strickland, will share the story 

of his brother, who, along with two other police officers, was shot 

and killed by Alabama teen Devin Moore, an avid player of ‘‘Grand 

Theft Auto.’’ That game rewards players for avoiding law enforcement in a quest to steal cars and perpetrate crime. After his arrest, 

Moore stated, ‘‘Life is like a video game. Everybody’s got to die 

sometime.’’ 

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund has also 

voiced concern about a game that glorifies and rewards the murder 

of police officers. They have a petition—I have got it here to show 

you—signed by 265,000 voicing the concern of officers and their 

families across the country. A number of representatives of that organization are here today, and I appreciate your attendance. 

At this point, with the indulgence of my colleague, I work to 

show a short clip of some of these video games that are new on the 

market, and particularly the cop-killing ones. I would advise those 

in the audience that these are graphic, they are violent. If you do 

not want to watch them, please do not. And I would not blame you 

a bit. I viewed them myself, and really, they turn your stomach. 

But I want to give you an idea. The videos you are about to see 

show clips of three games that are rated M for mature audience. 

Would you please put those videos on? It is about a 4- or 5-

minute clip showing several games. 

[Video shown.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you for showing that. My apologies if it offends people. I think it is important, though, that we 

show those. 

I hope that this hearing will allow us to discuss the current state 

of the law with regard to restrictions on the sale of these types of 

video games to children. I will introduce our witnesses in just a 

moment after I go to my colleague for an opening statement. 

Senator Feingold? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

The issue of violence in the media, and violent video games in 

particular, has raised a lot of concerns for parents and lawmakers, 

and I hope this hearing will be a constructive forum for inquiry 

and debate in both the scientific and legal issues related to the regulation of violent video games. 

Now, contrary to popular rumor, I am not a big video game guy, 

so this is really an opportunity for me to learn about something I 

4

am not terribly familiar with. Politicians do not usually admit they 

do not know about something, but I really do not. 

We have all heard about some of the extremely violent video 

games on the market today, and we have seen a powerful example 

of that today. And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, it enrages me 

that such a thing exists, that anyone would want to spend even 1 

minute creating such a monstrous thing. I say that as an individual. 

It is natural for parents to worry about whether playing those 

games could have detrimental effects on our young people, so I am 

interested to hear from the experts today about the work they have 

done in this area. While I realize that this hearing is not intended 

to address any particular Federal legislation, there are pending 

proposals in Congress on this topic. 

As in so many areas, Congress must be careful to consider the 

constitutional questions related to any attempt to address violence 

in video games. Obviously, we are taking this up as a part of the 

Judiciary Committee. We must precisely identify the problems that 

we are attempting to solve, and we have to evaluate the First 

Amendment implications of any proposed solutions. 

Federal courts, everyone should be aware, have consistently 

struck down on First Amendment grounds local and State efforts 

to regulate violent video games. It would be an enormous waste of 

time and resources to pass a clearly unconstitutional law, and at 

the end of the day, passing such a statute does not help anyone. 

Nonetheless, I am very interested in learning about this problem, 

and I welcome the witnesses, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Feingold. 

I want to recognize again Senator Kohl’s leadership on this effort 

for some time, your colleague from Wisconsin. 

We will go to the witnesses. I do not know, Senator Coburn, if 

you have an opening statement. No opening statement? 

Senator COBURN. No. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Let me introduce our first panel. We 

have two panels today. 

First, Reverend Steve Strickland, whose brother, Arnold Strickland, was a 25-year veteran of the police force in Fayette County, 

Alabama. He was shot and killed, along with two other offices, in 

2004 by Alabama teen Devin Moore, an avid video game player. 

Second is Dr. Elizabeth Carll. She is Chair of the Interactive 

Media Committee, which is part of the Media Psychology Division 

of the American Psychological Association. She was actively involved in the APA resolution drafted last year calling for a reduction in violence in video games. Thank you very much for joining 

us, Dr. Carll. 

The third witness is Dr. Dmitri Williams, an Assistant Professor 

of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Williams recently led a study on the effects of violent 

games and aggression. 

Dr. David Bickham is a research scientist at the Center on 

Media and Child Health at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Bickham 

has spent years studying the effects of all forms of media violence 

on children and published numerous articles on the subject. 

5

I thank the panel for joining us here today. I am looking forward 

to your testimony. 

As I mentioned at the outset, my intent here is to try to get and 

to build a factual basis of why there is a legitimate State interest 

in legislating on violence in video games and their targeting and 

marketing toward children. Any suggestions you have to us of Federal legislation would be good as well, but I am primarily trying 

to establish a factual record as to why there is a legitimate State 

interest in these, contrary really to how the Federal courts have 

ruled to date. 

Reverend Strickland, I know this must be difficult for you to be 

here, but I am delighted that you are willing to join us. The microphone is yours. We will set the clock at 6 minutes. That is a guide 

for you. All of your written testimony will be submitted into the 

record, and I would personally prefer most if you would summarize 

so we can ask as many questions as possible. 

Reverend Strickland? 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND STEVE STRICKLAND, FAYETTE 

COUNTY, ALABAMA 

Rev. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of this Committee, my name is Reverend Steve Strickland. I 

am one of three brothers of Arnold Strickland, who was a Fayette, 

Alabama, police officer, who was murdered by a teenager on June 

7, 2003. I was asked to come and testify by Senator Brownback’s 

office on how my brother’s murder has affected me and our family, 

and the two other families who also lost their loved ones, and our 

entire community. Thank you for giving me this opportunity today. 

The best way to start is to start on that Saturday morning, a 

morning that changed all of our families’ lives. Arnold and I had 

plans of going fishing that day. I was looking forward to spending 

that time with him. We did not get to spend and share as much 

time together as we would have liked because of my work as a minister. There was always something going on to keep us apart but 

not on that day. I was already on the water at daylight and waiting 

for him to get off work and come join me. It was going to be a fun 

day for the both of us. It always was when we got together. It was 

about 6:30 when that beautiful Saturday morning turned into one 

of the darkest days of my life. 

My nephew Shane, one of Arnold’s three sons, called and asked 

if I had seen Dad, and I said no, that I was waiting on his phone 

call to tell him how to get where I was. He was supposed to get 

off at 5 a.m. and should be here any minute. Shane said something 

had happened in Fayette and when he found out he would call me 

back. It was not 15 minutes when my phone rang again, and he 

said with tears in his voice, ‘‘You need to come home quick.’’ 

I knew at that moment I would never see my brother alive again. 

Our fishing days together were over. I sat there and wept bitterly 

because I loved my brother deeply. As I got to the house, there 

were family members already there along with police officers. It 

was total shock and confusion as to what had happened and what 

was going on. Being a minister, I deal with death on a regular 

basis, but I had not experienced such trauma as I did that day. In 

the hours ahead, we learned that Arnold along with two other 

6

men—one being James Crump, a fellow officer, and the other, Ace 

Mealer, who was the dispatcher that night—were also murdered. 

A young teenage boy named Devin Moore was responsible for the 

brutal execution of the three men that morning. 

As days passed and then weeks, months, and now years, our 

family is still trying to put our lives back together. No Saturday 

will ever be the same for me. No holidays will we ever enjoy as 

much as when Arnold was there. But what hurts the most is to see 

his grandchildren and knowing how much he loved them. They will 

never get to see him again. They will only hear stories and see pictures of their granddad. And how do you explain to a child that 

just last week granddad was there and now he is gone? And then 

the parents get to try to explain, when asked, How did he die and 

why did he die? 

The total impact on our families behind these senseless killings 

will never be over. This is the reason I accepted your invitation to 

come and speak today, so that maybe other families will not have 

to answer those hard questions or go through what our families are 

still going through to this day, trying to still sort it all out. That 

brings me to the point of why I am here. 

Video games: What are they and how are they being used? The 

statement I made earlier about Arnold and the other two being executed was a very true statement. You see, they were not just shot. 

All three received a bullet to the head after they were on the floor. 

You have to ask the question: What would bring a young teenage 

boy like Devin to this point? 

Devin made a statement in a local newspaper 1 day that made 

no sense to me whatsoever, until it got in the hands of one of our 

attorneys, Jack Thompson, who knows all about what that statement meant: ‘‘Life is like a video game, everyone has to die sometime.’’ As a minister, I deal with a lot of different issues and try 

to stay up and become educated on them, but Jack opened up a 

whole other world to me that I did not even know existed. This is 

the violent video game world—a world that, as far as I am concerned, is straight from the pits of Hell. 

As I gather more information on the games and the people who 

call themselves ‘‘gamers,’’ I could see how someone like Devin, who 

at 1 minute did not put up any resistance when arrested for stealing a car or when being booked, to the next minute, getting my 

brother’s gun from him in the police station, shooting him, and 

then killing two other men in a matter of less than 2 minutes. A 

game such as ‘‘Grand Theft Auto: Vice City’’ could and did teach 

him how to do this. As I watched this game being played on CBS’ 

‘‘60 Minutes,’’ I could not believe my eyes of how close in comparison this game was to the actual slaughter of my brother, along 

with James and Ace. 

I had to ask myself the question: Why would someone put such 

games on the market and into the hands of teenagers? In ‘‘Grand 

Theft Auto: Vice City,’’ the people we put our faith and trust in to 

protect us from harm—the police officers—are the ones being targeted as the bad guys. Devin Moore practiced on this game hour 

after hour to kill our loved ones. It made him a more effective killer. 

7

In this game, if you kill the police and other innocent people, you 

win points. You get extra points for shots to their heads. When a 

society gets to the point to where law enforcement are the bad guys 

and the thugs and the murderers are the good guys, our society 

will take a turn for the worse. Some have taken that turn. I do not 

believe most of us are ready for that. We have an opportunity to 

do something about this problem. Why don’t we? I am a man of 

facts. I try to live my life by them. Jack Thompson and others have 

facts and experts to back up what these games are: they are copkilling simulators, and they will bring more deaths in the future. 

Our loved ones in Fayette are not the only ones to die at the hands 

of teens who trained on this game to kill. 

Let me remind you if I may: It could be one of your family members next. I ask that we put all the true facts on the table about 

how dangerous all of these murder simulation video games are. 

The primary motivation for what these video game companies do 

in making and marketing violent video games to kids is this: 

money. Why would these companies want to change things? One 

day, we will all stand before the Almighty God and give an account 

for what we have done and what we have accomplished, both good 

and bad on this Earth. 

I ask all of you Senators that we take a good, hard look at the 

impact of these games and what they have on our teenagers and 

hold everyone accountable for their part. These games in the wrong 

hands played long enough are detrimental to our families, to our 

friends, and to our entire society. 

I thank you for allowing me to share our grief, as well as our 

hope for a safer America. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Strickland appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Reverend Strickland. That 

was very powerful, and we are sorry about your brother and the 

other members, but I do appreciate very much your willingness to 

come here and to testify about it. I look forward to having some 

questions for you. 

Dr. Carll, thank you very much for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH K. CARLL, CHAIR, INTERACTIVE 

MEDIA COMMITTEE, MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY DIVISION, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, LONG ISLAND, NEW 

YORK 

Ms. CARLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for initiating this important hearing on violence in video games. I am Dr. Elizabeth Carll, the Chair of the 

Interactive Media Committee of the Media Psychology Division of 

the American Psychological Association. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Pull it up a little bit. You are kind of 

hard to hear. 

Ms. CARLL. The effects of media violence on children has been a 

career-long interest with the adoption of the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media being one of the initiatives when I served as president of the Media Division of APA. 

I am also a psychologist in private practice in Long Island, New 

York, and I have worked with children, teens, and families for 

8

more than 25 years. The APA is pleased to participate in today’s 

hearing and thanks Senator Brownback for his important work on 

issues surrounding media and children. 

The Interactive Media Committee was formed to facilitate the 

implementation of the recommendations of the Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media, which was adopted by 

APA in 2005, which I will be discussing. APA’s Media Psychology 

Division spearheaded the adoption of the APA resolution with the 

recognition that there is often a disconnect between research, legislation, and implementation of useful recommendations at the community level. 

It may be of interest for the Committee to be aware that, as a 

result of the APA resolution, a formal dialog with the Electronic 

Software Ratings Board has begun to discuss ways in which the 

current ratings system may be improved. 

It is also important to emphasize that the electronic media plays 

an important role in the emotional development, social behavior, 

and intellectual functioning of children and youth. There are many 

video games that are very helpful for children to facilitate medical 

treatment, increase learning, and promote pro-social behavior. 

However, there are also video games that include aggression, violence, and sexualized violence that may have a negative impact on 

children. It is this group of video games that I will be discussing 

today. 

Many of the issues that I will be discussing today were of concern when I first testified at the 1999 New York State Legislature’s 

hearings on the effects of violence in interactive media on children 

and discussed the unique characteristics of video games. However, 

what has changed since that time has been the rapid growth in the 

body of research that continues to point to the detrimental effects 

of violence in video games and interactive media on children, as 

well as the increasing public concern regarding this issue. 

So what are the unique characteristics of video games and interactive media versus TV and film? 

More than four decades of research have revealed that TV violence has a strong influence on the aggressive behavior of children 

and youth. Exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, 

thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, 

and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with conflict. 

However, video games and interactive media have certain qualities that are distinct from passive media, such as TV and film. For 

example, video games require active participation enabling rehearsal and practice of violent acts; include frequent repetition of 

acts of violence as part of winning the game; reward game players 

for simulated acts of violence, often the winner of the game is the 

one who kills and destroys the most; and enables the identification 

of the participant with a violent character while playing video 

games. All of these qualities enhance learn. 

Therefore, this practice, repetition, identification with a violent 

character, and being rewarded for numerous acts of violence may 

intensify learning of violence. With the development of more sophisticated interactive media, the implications for violent content 

are of further concern. This is due to the intensification of more realistic experiences, which may be even more conducive to increasVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 028337 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28337.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

ing aggressive behavior as compared to passively watching violence 

on TV and in films. 

What are the effects of exposure of children to violence in video 

games? 

A comprehensive analysis of violence in interactive video game 

research suggests exposure increases aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and decreases 

helpful behavior. 

Studies further suggest that sexualized violence in the media has 

been linked to increases in violence toward women, the acceptance 

of rape myth, and anti-women attitudes. 

Research also suggests that the most popular video games contain aggressive and violent themes and content. Girls and boys, 

men and women, and minorities are depicted in exaggerated 

stereotypical ways. Sexual aggression against women, including assault, rape, and murder, is depicted as humorous and glamorous 

and is rewarded. 

What are some of the concerns regarding the current rating system for video games? 

Efforts to improve the rating system for video games and interactive media would be a first step in providing additional helpful 

information as to the content of video games. Currently, the labels 

are very general, and more content specificity is needed for parents 

to make informed decisions about the video games their children 

play. For example, are there only a few depictions of violence, or 

is it a main theme? What types of violence are depicted—sports violence, war violence, or random thrill kill violence? Is violence 

linked with negative social consequences or rewarded? The scientific community should be involved in the development of a more 

accurate rating system to better inform parents and consumers. 

Recommendations from the APA Resolution on Violence in Video 

Games and Interactive Media: 

Advocate for the funding to support research on the effects of violence in video games and media on children, adolescents, and 

young adults. APA supports the Children and Media Research Advancement Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 

funding to establish a program on children and the media within 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the role 

and impact of electronic media in the development of children. 

Recommendation: Teach media literacy to children so they will 

also have the ability to critically evaluate interactive media. This 

needs to involve educating parents, teachers, and caregivers. 

Encourage the entertainment industry to link violent behaviors 

with negative social consequences. Showing violence without realistic consequences teachers children that violence is an effective 

means of resolving conflict; whereas, seeing pain and suffering as 

a consequence can inhibit aggressive behavior. 

Develop and disseminate a content-based rating system that 

more accurately reflects the content of video games and interactive 

media and encourages the distribution and use of the rating system 

by the industry, parents, caregivers, and educational organizations. 

The complete text of the APA Resolution on Violence in Video 

Games and Interactive Media is available online. 

10

I would like to thank the Committee for their interest in this important issue and Senator Brownback for his continued leadership 

in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Carll appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Dr. Carll, and APA is going to 

be critical in its findings if Federal court should rule the other way, 

that there isn’t a legitimate State interest. Your organization is 

going to be one of the critical ones to say there is a legitimate State 

interest, and I appreciate the resolution. I hope you can keep moving forward with it. 

Dr. Williams? 

STATEMENT OF DMITRI WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT 

URBANA-CHAMPAIGN, URBANA, ILLINOIS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feingold, for 

the opportunity to testify here today. 

I am here today in my capacity as a media researcher and social 

psychologist to talk about the science of media effects. Like my colleagues here, I have read the research, and like them, I strongly 

support media literacy for both adolescents and parents. Like them, 

I have come to the conclusion that televised violence likely does 

lead to increases in aggression among some adolescents, most often 

the ones in at-risk categories. I have no issue with that body of research. 

The question is whether the same thing holds true with the work 

on video games, violent and otherwise. My message to you here 

today is that we do not know yet. People use words like ‘‘links’’ and 

‘‘relationships,’’ which imply cause and effect, but that is not well 

established yet. Based on what has been published so far, I do not 

share my colleagues’ certainty at all, and I would like to explain 

specifically why. 

The first reason is that we have been studying fish out of water. 

Gaming is a highly social activity, and we know from media research dating back to at least the 1930’s that social context can 

change media effects drastically. Some games have vibrant social 

communities, and some have none. A massively multi-player game 

like ‘‘World of Warcraft’’ is as unlike a game like ‘‘Doom’’ as ‘‘Sesame Street’’ is from ‘‘The Sopranos.’’ The games are often apples 

and oranges, and many researchers do not know one from another. 

Plainly put, games are not television. 

I talk to gamers every day. They say things like, ‘‘GLA for the 

win’’ and ‘‘Minus 50 DKP’’ and other arcane slogans. Unless you 

enter their very social world, you will not understand what meanings they are making. 

Bringing isolated people into a lab does not gain us much because that is not how people play, especially in the Internet era. 

When you include the social side, you quickly find large effects, 

both good and bad. I have found and published both good and bad. 

The second point is that we do not know if we can trust a lot 

of the existing research because of how short it is. If I told you that 

we had a study that showed games causing aggression and that 

that study lasted 30 minutes, you would have a hard time then 

11

concluding that games would cause aggression over an hour or a 

week or a year. For that you would need a study that lasted an 

hour, a week, or a year. I am not sure that you realize that all you 

have been given are these short studies. They usually last between 

10 and 30 minutes, and yet we are all talking about years and life 

spans. 

The other big problem is that with a study that short, you might 

be measuring excitement, not violence. That would be arousal, not 

aggression. You could effectively get the same effects by having 

them throw a Frisbee. 

In fact, when the studies go longer, it is possible that the effects 

might fade away. We do not have a lot of these long studies, so the 

jury is really still out, but we do have two studies of one violent 

game in particular—‘‘Mortal Kombat.’’ In the first study, the players played for 10 minutes, and there were large effects. In the second study, the players continued playing for 75 minutes, and the 

effects were nearly gone. That means there is a very good chance 

they fade away or were not there in the first place. It is possible 

that arousal was replaced with boredom or fatigue in those studies. 

Last year, I published the longest study to date investigating 

game violence. I had players play a game over a month and not in 

a laboratory. The average play time in my sample was 56 hours, 

which is the longest research exposure for a game ever. And after 

56 hours, I found nothing. I was surprised—no increases in violence, aggressive cognitions, anything. 

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that this study proves that 

games do not cause violence. A different game, a different sample, 

different measures might have found something different. I also 

cannot say what 2 months would do. I am not willing to make that 

leap the way that others are willing to do. 

But when you look at the length of these studies and you consider results like mine, you have to become at least a little skeptical of the strong claims that are made, the strong causal claims. 

I know that one of the reasons to hold this hearing is to find out 

why the State laws keep getting defeated. Let me explain why the 

laws are losing on the science. It is because the legislators are only 

talking and listening to people who agree with them, when, in fact, 

there is significant disagreement within academia. 

I have read the legislative bibliography for the current California 

case, and I have seen materials from the State which claim that 

they have read all the applicable research. But they did not. There 

are studies that are missing. There are entire methods which do 

not appear on their list. The 75-minute study is there. My 1-month 

study is not there. There are entire research associations that were 

not consulted, two which specialize in media, which I belong to, 

and one which specializes in game research. Not consulted. And the 

entire body of anthropological work is completely ignore. 

Those decisions represent politics, not science. And if you read 

the courts’ opinions, you can see that the judges’ can tell. 

I know that the CAMRA Act is also making its way through Congress, so here is a place where I think we have some common 

ground. We really do need more and better research, and certainly 

better media literacy. I support CAMRA, but let me offer some suggestions of how it can get rid of objections like mine. 

12

First, do not ask the Centers for Disease Control to administer 

studies of media. Media is not a controlled substance. If you want 

media researchers to respect it, consider the National Science 

Foundation. 

Second, amend the Act to include the social context of media use. 

I have read the Act’s language and it is missing. More studies of 

college sophomores playing alone are not going to help anymore. 

We need studies of all ages and of how they actually play, which 

means studies of gamers playing with their friends, playing with 

family, playing with strangers, online at home, in Internet cafes, 

at school, and at work. The networked world of play is the future, 

and it is also the future, subsequently, of research. 

And, last, emphasize long-term studies, controlled, if possible. 

Ten- and 30-minute studies are not sufficient for science to conclude long-term effects, and they should not be enough for policymakers either. 

Senators, thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Dr. Williams, and I look forward to some discussion and the question time period. Thank you. 

Dr. Bickham? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. BICKHAM, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, 

CENTER ON MEDIA AND CHILD HEALTH, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOSTON, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. BICKHAM. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Bickham, and I am a research scientist at the Center on Media and Child Health located 

at Children’s Hospital Boston and affiliated with Harvard Medical 

School and Harvard School of Public Health. The center is an interdisciplinary group of pediatricians, psychologists, social scientists, 

and child development experts with the mission to research and respond to the effects of media on the physical, mental, and social 

health of children. My own research has been published in top 

health and psychology journals. I am here today to review the scientific evidence on video games and the concern that these games 

contribute to children’s violent thoughts and behaviors. 

While most the research on video game violence is relatively 

new, we must consider it within the broader field of television, film, 

and visual violence, and I disagree a little with Dr. Williams on 

this point. I see television—we understand television teaches kids 

by them viewing the violence, seeing it rewarded, and then incorporating that into their own behavior. Video games go one step further and actually allow them to imitate it and do it onscreen themselves. So I see that television provides a very good basis for understanding the effects of video game violence because it is also a visual medium. 

There are five decades of research that show a link between violent media and aggression the Tribunal is based on a sound theoretical and empirical understanding of learning aggression and social cognition. A core ongoing project at the Center on Media and 

Child Health is the consolidation of all existing research on media 

effects into one publicly available data base. After 3 years of this 

13

work, the data base includes over 1,200 research reports investigating the effects of media violence. 

Now, if you take any of these studies alone, we must realize that 

no study is perfect. Even the best study design can be criticized for 

limitation of its methods. All methods have weaknesses. Taken together, however, each study provides a piece of a single puzzle that 

all interlock to reveal one picture. In this case, the picture is clear: 

Using violent media increases children’s aggressive thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. 

Beyond violent television and film, there are reasons to believe 

that violent video games have stronger effects. We know that all 

media teach, and they especially teach young children. And they 

teach whether it is by the design of the media or just simply by 

default. Video games are exceptional teaching tools. They incorporate many techniques that promote learning in their users. They 

are interactive. They are involving. They require almost complete 

attention. And they reward success with points and new challenges. Scientists have exposed children to violent video games in 

laboratories and found that they become more aggressive than children who played non-violent games. Using survey studies, scientists have found that, even after controlling for complex environmental and individual characteristics that are also linked with aggression, playing violent video games is related to children’s aggression additionally. 

Overall, we should not be surprised by the scientific evidence illustrating that when children play games that reward and encourage violent behavior onscreen, they become more violent. 

In rare situations, violence from media is directly imitated. But 

the most pervasive effects are more subtle and come from repeated 

viewings and playings. Violent video games present a world where 

violence is justified, it is rewarded, and it is often the only way to 

win the game. Exposure to this world primes children for hostile 

thoughts and behaviors immediately after playing a game. They 

begin to think and act aggressively and solve problems with violence. 

Regardless of exactly how this process happens, the real question 

is about risk. Playing violent video games is one of a number of factors in a child’s life that increases that child’s risk of behaving aggressively. 

Before suggesting some strategies for mitigating the effects of 

violent video games, I would like to clarify two common misconceptions about research on media violence. 

First, scientific research does not claim that media violence is the 

sole cause of human aggression. Nor does it claim that media violence is the original or most important cause. Violent media is, 

however, a substantial, pervasive, and controllable contributor to 

children’s violent behaviors. The aspect of controllable is very important because other factors that contribute to aggression, such as 

heredity, family environment, racism, culture, all of these things 

are difficult, if not impossible, to change. 

Second, this research does not show that there is something inherently dangerous about video games. Many non-violent puzzlebased and educational games have been shown to increase children’s mental abilities and teach academic lessons. Children will 

14

learn what we teach them. If we provide positive, healthy messages 

the resulting behaviors will be positive and healthy as well. 

Further research in this area can inform us in the most effective 

intervention strategies. We need to know more about what factors 

increase and decrease a child’s risk for the effects of violent video 

games. Through this research, we can develop prevention measures 

for all children and specifically target higher-risk children for intervention. We need to extend the research that ties violent video 

games with real-life violence. There is some anecdotal evidence 

that many school shooters have been heavy users of violent video 

games. Could violent video game play have been a trigger that 

switched a troubled child from thoughts of revenge to actual behavior? We do not know. And given the nature of the crime, we will 

probably never be able to study this directly. But we can examine 

the relationship between violent video games and precursors of 

school shootings, including the most common, much more common 

behaviors of bullying and weapon carrying. A long-term study, preferably one that is nationally representative, is essential to understand these and other effects of violent video games. 

Media literacy programs where children learn critical thinking 

skills can help immunize them against the effects of violent media. 

At the Center on Media and Child Health, we are currently evaluating the effectiveness of a school-based media literacy program. 

Our preliminary evidence shows that children start to change their 

understanding of media violence after a single class session. Additional research is necessary so that we can create the most effective 

programs possible. 

To date, the evidence about video games may not be perfect. In 

social science, you rarely actually ever prove anything. But I think 

we are at a point when we need to act on what we know. 

Given the evidence that we have, are we actually willing to risk 

the possible and dramatic long-term effects that playing these 

games could have on our children’s health? As caretakers of the 

next generation, we have a responsibility to provide children with 

a safe environment in which to grow, develop and learn. Research 

has shown the media children use have real effects on their lives. 

In the Information Age, media must be understood as a powerful, 

nearly universal environmental health influence. We ensure the 

safety of what we feed children’s bodies. We owe it to their future 

and the future of our society to ensure the safety of what we feed 

their minds. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bickham appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Dr. Bickham. 

I am going to go to Senator Coburn first for questions. We will 

run the clock at 6 minutes, if that is OK with my colleagues, and 

then I will go to Senator Feingold. Senator Coburn has another 

meeting he has to attend. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Feingold, for the deference to ask questions first. 

Is there any doubt in any of your minds that you can positively 

influence behavior in a positive way with video games? In other 

15

words, if you want to achieve a certain goal, you can design a video 

game to increase the propensity to establish that behavior? 

Mr. BICKHAM. I will take that. I think there is some doubt because there is not a lot of research on it. There is a lot of research 

on educational television that shows when it is well designed, it 

can have long-term effects, including positive—kids who watch 

more ‘‘Sesame Street’’ when they are about 4 have higher grades 

in high school. So there is some evidence base there. And because 

of the potential that video games have for how good teachers they 

are, I think that a well-designed, a well—a game that is well designed but also has a lot of research put into it at the front end 

as they are developing it could lead to very dramatic positive effects if it is designed that way. 

I would go a little further and say that you would have to take 

violence completely out of those games because those effects are so 

well documented that I think it would have those as well, so we 

would have to be very careful to take that out of any of those types 

of games. 

Senator COBURN. Dr. Carll? Dr. Williams? 

Ms. CARLL. I would certainly agree that there are many games 

that are not violent and destructive and there are video games that 

are being developed for children who have various illnesses to help 

them deal with those. So there are a lot of positive things developing, and learning theory is a neutral theory. You can learn negative behaviors and you can learn positive behaviors. 

Senator COBURN. But your general inclination is that that is 

probably so, that you can learn a positive behavior from a well-designed video game. 

Ms. CARLL. Yes, if it has positive content. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. This is a place where our colleagues in the field 

of education have actually done probably more extensive research 

than many of us in social psych and the effects side have, especially some work for some people up in Wisconsin, actually. At UW, 

the Education Department there has a group of researchers who 

have actually been looking at long-term learning effects, and here 

is a place where they have us at a disadvantage because rather 

than doing 10-minute or 20-minute or 30-minute studies, they can 

look at things like test scores over the course of a semester, and 

they could taken games, some with violence, some without, games 

like ‘‘Civilization’’ where you are building up societies and attacking and defending from others, following the course of history, and 

you can see dramatic improvement in learning. 

It is an area where we do not have the same level of evidence 

to make the same kind of conclusions. 

Senator COBURN. Dr. Williams, in your 56-hour study, how long 

was your followup period on that, post-follow-up? have you had a 

continuing post-follow-up on that study? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No. For reasons of compliance with my local IRB, 

this was a 1 month-off study, also for resources. I did a pre-test. 

They played the game. There was a post-test immediately after, 

and that is it. Also because of anonymity, I cannot contact them. 

They are gone. 

16

Senator COBURN. So you are basing your testimony on a study 

you had and you have no followup? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. As I said, I am only comfortable talking about 

what happened over the course of the month. I do not want to 

make conclusions longer— 

Senator COBURN. Which means if we have no followup, we know 

nothing about the results of that exposure— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We know nothing about— 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. Because it is not immediate— 

Mr. WILLIAMS [continuing]. It after a month, that is right. 

Senator COBURN. That is right, OK. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the longest to date. 

Senator COBURN. Let me ask you a question. At any time in the 

course of your studies have you received any funding, directly or 

indirectly, from either a video game company, a manufacturer, or 

somebody that is a principal in that through an indirect or direct 

source? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. For research? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. When I was completing my dissertation work, I 

had to get copies of the game that I used as a stimulus somehow, 

and I did not have the resources to do it. But for legal reasons, the 

publisher of the game did not want to be associated with it, so they 

gave me copies as a donation, wiped their hands clean. They did 

not want to be in possession in case I did find something negative. 

It turns out that I did not. But for that reason I actually have no 

relationship with the game industry. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you. 

I am amazed that we do not sit back and look at common sense 

on this. I mean, we know what television does. You know, it is 

pretty firm, the conclusions both the psychologists, the pediatricians, the social psychologists have come to in terms of the influence of violence through television. And it seems to me strange 

that we would not start with the concept that probably there is an 

impact and now let us go prove it to see if there is since we know 

through other video forms that there is an impact. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just relate, I have taken care of kids in 

my practice for 25 years, and I can tell you, I have seen the effects, 

both negatively and positively, of video games. And my partners 

see the effects. We actually had a shooting in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, at one time, and much of that was related—not just to video 

games, but also to the environment that a child was in. 

So I would hope that we and the Congress would start with the 

precept of what we do know about video presentation of violence 

and children and work from that, and I would agree that we should 

certainly be in the position to fund some long-term studies. 

In the meantime, we ought to do whatever we can to limit the 

violent exposure of these games to children, because there is nothing positive. There may not be anything negative, but there is certainly nothing positive from these games. 

And with that, I yield back my time. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. 

Senator Feingold? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17

Mr. Chairman, I have received a number of additional statements and testimony for this hearing, and I would ask that they 

be placed in the record. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Without objection. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Reverend Strickland, thank you for being here today. I am sure 

it was not an easy thing for you to do this, and I want you to know 

that I appreciate your willingness to share your experience with us. 

This question is for the three researchers on the panel. I understand from the testimony that quite a bit of research has been done 

regarding the effects of television violence on the behavior of children, but far less has been done, as has been indicated, specifically 

on the effects on violent video games. Obviously, Dr. Williams had 

already alluded to this. 

But each of you, I would like you to comment on do you think 

we need more research in this area. Dr. Carll? 

Ms. CARLL. Oh, absolutely. That is why we support the CAMRA 

Act. We certainly need more research on longer-term and we need 

more research in many of the things that I think Dr. Williams also 

had said, as well as Dr. Bickham, particularly in Dr. Williams’ because his is a multi-player format, which is very different than 

some of the video games that have been evaluated before, which involves cooperation and various other aspects. So certainly the importance of research is there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Dr. Williams, I think I know what you are 

going to say, but go ahead. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with myself, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. Very eloquently stated. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

To elaborate briefly, there are some initial pieces of research 

coming out that you find that there are differences when people are 

playing by themselves, with other people, against other people, 

with teammates, and I think that is the direction we ought to be 

heading, because those are the ways that games are actually 

played. It could very well be that that shows that things are worse, 

not better, but these are the mediating factors that we would like 

to understand better. Me particularly, I would focus on the social. 

This is a huge phenomenon, especially playing online. Millions of 

people playing together creating online communities, and we know 

almost nothing about it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Dr. Bickham? 

Mr. BICKHAM. Yes, surprisingly, I also agree there needs to be 

more research. I think, however, there is enough research now, I 

think, as I said, that we can act. You know, it is at a point where 

in social science we do not prove things. We always work with limited information. We always work with incomplete knowledge. We 

could fund this forever. We could do this research forever. These 

games change every day. We have to make a decision at some 

point: Do we know enough now, are we willing to step out and say, 

yes, we want to protect children from something, even if we are not 

completely 100 percent sure? Even if it is only something that accounts for 15 or 20 percent of all the crime, are we willing to go 

18

out on the research that we have and make some interventions to 

protect kids from them? 

Senator FEINGOLD. I think that is a fair point. It is hard to know 

at what point you have done enough, and you cannot make it impossible for you to go forward and do anything about a problem. 

But I want to go back to Professor Williams with regard to this. 

Say a little bit more how a researcher goes about evaluating 

whether a particular form of media, such as video games, might 

cause people to engage in aggressive behavior. It strikes me as a 

very difficult hypothesis to test. And Dr. Bickham just talked about 

knowing that in 15, 20 percent of the cases this is the case—I did 

not hear you say that in your testimony. It did not seem like you 

necessarily thought this was true, any proof that it is true in any 

case. So how do you separate these things out in terms of methodology? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I certainly agree with Dr. Bickham that you need 

multiple methods to really understand something. It would be nice 

to also have some sociological and ethnographic work done to actually talk to players, as revolutionary a concept as that may sound, 

actually go and see what meanings they are making out of it. You 

get a very different story than you do with a study. 

To track someone over the long term is, as you say, a pretty difficult thing. It is something that is resource-intensive, and in the 

communication area we are often having a hard time getting funding for it to do these long-term studies. And I think we are all on 

the panel in agreement that it would be a useful contribution to 

the literature and to our understanding. 

My contention is that 30 minutes, that does not tell us much 

about truly long-term things, and here is a point of significant difference with the television literature, where there are truly longitudinal research studies, and I started my testimony by saying that 

I have no quibble with them. I am sold. But that is where you have 

people and you can follow them over 25 years. I do not think we 

need to do 25 years of research, but I think that going past 30 minutes into days, weeks, months gets a little more at the reasonableness factor to see when these things might stick, because some of 

the research that I talked about suggested that it might not be 

sticking, it might fade off. It might work just like television does. 

It might be worse. But until you show it, that is very different than 

saying that you know about it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. How do you deal with the problem that the 

same person may be watching other kinds of media that are disturbing? And how do you separate that out? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a very difficult research problem. It adds a 

significant amount of noise. The one thing you can try to do is establish a control group of people who are not engaging in your kind 

of media, but they are going to be engaging in some other kind of 

media. So what you have to do is find some kind of game that is 

significantly different than the media universe they might consume 

on their own, or you take some measure after, post hoc to find out 

what they did and contrast it with it. 

It is a thorny issue, and it is one of the reasons why the television research, the long-term one, did not have a control group. 

19

The 1 month I had is tough enough to do, and without more resources it becomes even harder. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Dr. Carll, I want to followup on something 

that you touched on in your testimony. Video games along with 

other forms of media can obviously deliver many messages to children that you and I might not think are the best messages to send. 

Has work been done to evaluate the effects on children of other aspects of video games besides violence that you mentioned in your 

testimony, that is, let’s say, based on gender or racial stereotypes 

or glorifying sexual aggression against women? 

Ms. CARLL. Yes, there have been many studies in that area. In 

fact, the list that was attached to the testimony we submitted includes that. But, yes, there are stereotypes, and many of the video 

games, unfortunately, look toward those stereotypes and depict 

those, and anyone playing that would have exaggerated aspects in 

playing that as far as how people are depicted, whether it is 

women, children, boys, men, minorities in particular. So, yes, other 

aspects besides violence have been researched. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Feingold. 

I want to ask first submission to the record of a statement by Dr. 

Leland Yee, Speaker Pro Tem of the California State Assembly; 

also a statement in by Dr. John Murray, Professor, Department of 

Psychology, Kent State University; a resolution by the Florida Police Chiefs Association; and from the Pennsylvania Fraternal Order 

of Police—the police ones particularly regarding the video gam ‘‘25 

to Life’’ that we showed. Those will be submitted into the record. 

Reverend Strickland, thank you again for being here, and I appreciate your poignant testimony about the impact and the impact 

on your family in particular. Have you in your work as a minister 

worked with families where the child—or with children that have 

been involved in video games, violent video games? Do you have 

more experience in this area? 

Rev. STRICKLAND. No, sir, I do not. Like I said, it is a whole new 

world to me. I deal mainly with alcohol and drugs more than the 

videos, but the videos are becoming very evident within our communities. I mean, when all this came about in 2003, I had many 

mothers that would come up to me after it hit the media about the 

video games and tell me that they did not realize that their children—or what their children was playing. Many parents, you 

know, you stick a video in, you go buy a video game and let the 

kids play, and you go do what you want to do. And, unfortunately, 

they did not censor these games before they started letting them 

play, and they would come up and tell me and say, ‘‘When I 

watched the games of what they were, I actually took them out and 

throwed them in the garbage can. I did not realize that they were 

this violent.’’ 

So it is a whole new area for me. It is one that I am learning 

and trying to get educated on, on how to handle it, because I feel 

that it will affect our younger generation. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Did you see any quotes from Devin 

Moore’s parents about his playing of these violent video games? Or 

do you know anything about that situation? 

20

Rev. STRICKLAND. Nothing other than we have facts that he did 

play them. Devin came from a very difficult background. He has 

had a mom and a dad that was not together, or whatever. His upbringing was not the best in the world. But his mom did say that 

she was with him when he purchased the video games themselves 

at an age that he wasn’t supposed to be able to purchase them. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. But Devin purchased the games himself? 

Rev. STRICKLAND. Right. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Even though it was not age-appropriate 

for him to purchase it? 

Rev. STRICKLAND. Right. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I want to go to the researchers on this 

point. I have been around this topic awhile. Since being in the Senate, I have been around this topic, and they just keep getting more 

graphic, more violent, more horrific. I mean, I long for the time in 

1997, I think, when I started these hearings, because the technology was not as good. I am imagining the day soon where you 

stand in the video room as the first-person killer and you are surrounded by sound and by screens and shooting in a very realistic 

setting. As a matter of fact, I am sure somebody technologically 

could do it today. It is whether they can make any money out of 

it probably is the question. And you all know we use these video 

settings to train our military with. I have been in simulators at 

Fort Riley in Kansas where we use a video simulator to train, and 

we retrain and retrain and retrain. And so that when the person 

gets in the situation, they do not have to think. They act. And we 

can also overcome the natural tendency in people to not want to 

shoot somebody else. It is actually more natural within us not to 

shoot somebody else, but in military settings, in particular, OK, we 

are trying to force people to overcome that. And so part of it is this, 

OK, we are going to put you in a simulator and simulate and simulate and simulate so that when you get in that situation you are 

not thinking, you are just shooting. And I cannot help but to think 

that that flows right into this situation here when we purposely do 

it in that setting and when it gets so much more graphic, so much 

more violent and realistic. 

Let me ask you, the researchers in particular, what if we require 

the video game manufacturers before they released an M-rated 

game that they had to do some sort of behavioral study like what 

you have done and we try to build the prototype of what it is, that 

we require that prior to the game being released. Would that be 

useful information to help build up the body of knowledge that you 

all say is lacking? Dr. Carll? 

Ms. CARLL. I would request that certainly various kinds of research would be helpful, but it should not be conducted by the entertainment industry but a neutral organization who does not have 

a vested interest in it. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Amen to that. I agree with you on that. 

But what about having that information by a neutral group? 

Ms. CARLL. That may be helpful. I think what would be even 

more helpful, because that is something so far down the road, 

would be information in a rating system that would be helpful for 

parents to be more specific as to the content— 

21

Chairman BROWNBACK. That is what you mentioned in your testimony. 

Ms. CARLL. Right. And that could be more easily done than what 

you are describing. It would be very helpful for parents to know if 

violence is rewarded and does it have negative social consequences 

or is the purpose of the game thrill kill to see how many people 

you can kill for the sake of killing them. That is a different kind 

of game than, for instance, the one that was used by Dr. Williams, 

which was not antisocial in that sense. 

So different kinds of games have different outcomes, and I certainly agree that there is a diversity of games and we need to look 

at research in that area. But those kinds of games which have 

those negative qualities are likely very different from some of those 

with more positive ones, and, yes, so having more research in that 

area would be helpful as well. But having information for parents 

to know what kind of games their kids are playing is even more 

important. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I agree with that. 

Dr. Williams, what do you think about that, requiring a study for 

M-rated games released? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, here we cross into the First Amendment territory as much as the research territory, and the impulse to in 

some way restrict or measure something before it is released to the 

general public falls way outside of my purview. And as a citizen, 

honestly it creeps me out a little bit. As a researcher, sure, I would 

love to have access to those kinds of materials. I can also tell you 

that we take a really, really long time with things, so I don’t know 

how feasible that would be. Would it be nice to have some kind of 

better description or content knowing what is out there to give parents more information? I don’t think anybody objects to that. You 

know, you will hear from the ESRB rep in the second panel, and 

you can figure out whether or not you think they do a good job or 

not. 

I have to say in passing that I spent all last week at the game 

developer conference in San Jose talking with game developers, 

and it might surprise you to know that they have a very contentious relationship with ESRB and find them very adversarial. So 

ESRB obviously feels besieged from both sides. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. OK. I want to thank the panel very 

much. If you have additional statements to put in, please feel free 

to do so. 

We have a second panel I want to call up. The first witness on 

the second panel is Pat Vance, President, Entertainment Software 

Rating Board. The ESRB provides the ratings for video games. 

We have Representative Jeff Johnson, Assistant Majority Leader, 

Minnesota House of Representatives. Representative Johnson 

drafted a video game bill which is currently pending before the 

Minnesota Legislature. 

Paul Smith is a partner at Jenner and Block in Washington, D.C. 

He has represented the video game industry in a number of its 

suits challenging State restrictions on the sale of violent games to 

minors. 

And Professor Kevin Saunders, a law professor at Michigan State 

University, teaches a course on constitutional law and the First 

22

Amendment. He has been involved in drafting a number of the 

State laws. 

Thank you all very much for being here. Ms. Vance, I want to 

open up with you. Welcome. We will run the time block at about 

6 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATING BOARD, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. VANCE. Thank you, Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member 

Feingold, and the entire Subcommittee for the invitation to appear 

today. I would like to take this opportunity to provide greater insight into how ESRB ratings currently empower parents to make 

informed decisions about the games their children play. I request 

that my statements, both oral and written, along with the instructive appendices, be made a part of the hearing record. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Without objection. 

Ms. VANCE. Thank you. 

Virtually every computer and video game sold in the U.S. today 

carries an ESRB rating, and nearly all major retailers choose to 

only stock games that have been rated by our organization. This 

voluntary commitment from the video game industry and the retail 

community ensures that consumers have accurate and reliable information to help them decide which games are appropriate for 

themselves, their children, and other family members. Today, the 

vast majority of parents use and trust ESRB ratings in helping 

them make those decisions. 

The two-part ESRB rating system now consists of six age-based 

rating categories appearing on the front and back of each game 

package and 32 different content descriptors that appear on the 

back prominently displayed next to the rating category which indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a rating or may 

be of concern to parents. ESRB ratings are based on the consensus 

of adult raters who have no ties to the game industry and work on 

a part-time basis. One of ESRB’s key responsibilities is to ensure 

that these raters review all pertinent game content, including the 

most extreme, no matter how hard it might be to find when playing 

the game. 

Many of today’s games can take over 50 hours to play all the way 

through, so it is critical that companies fully disclose to the ESRB 

in detail exactly what is in the game across a broad range of categories, including but not limited to violence, sex, language, use of 

a controlled substance, and gambling. If a company does not fully 

disclose all the game’s content to the ESRB, recent enhancements 

to our enforcement system allow for the imposition of fines up to 

$1 million. The power to impose substantial penalties which may 

include the suspension of rating services and corrective actions that 

can result in a full product recall serve as a tremendous disincentive for any company entertaining the notion of withholding pertinent content from the ESRB. 

As the FTC has previously noted, the ESRB enforcement system 

is unique in its scope and severity among entertainment rating systems. While games that are rated for mature audiences tend to get 

a disproportionately high amount of media attention, the reality is 

that, by far, the largest number of titles rated by the ESRB year 

23

in and year out receive a rating of ‘‘E’’ for ‘‘Everyone,’’ and only 

about 12 percent of games receive an M rating for players 17 and 

older. Furthermore, last year, not one mature-rated game made it 

onto the top ten seller list. These facts belie the common 

misperception that all games are created and intended for children. 

The fact is that the average age of a gamer today is 30. So it is 

not surprising that video games, just like movies and TV shows, 

are created for all ages. The ratings help parent discern which 

games are right for their children and which ones are not, and increasingly, parents have come to rely on them. 

A recent study by Peter Hart Research found that 83 percent of 

parents with children who play games are aware of the ESRB ratings and 74 percent use them regularly when buying games. While 

that is pretty good, we continue to put significant resources into aggressive educational initiatives to remind and encourage parents to 

use the ratings every time they buy a game. 

Moreover, for the ratings to be reliable, they must meet parents’ 

expectations, and to that end, the ESRB commissioned separate research annually to test the level of agreement with our rating assignments among parents in ten different markets across the U.S. 

In the study, parents view excerpts from a large number of randomly selected games across all ESRB rating categories, and the 

results show that parents agree with ESRB ratings 82 percent of 

the time or find them too strict another 5 percent of the time. 

Given the broad diversity of values, tastes, and opinions in our 

country, this is a very high level of agreement, and it is a testament to the effectiveness of the system we use to assign ratings. 

Some would argue that the ratings do not work because they do 

not place restrictions on what kids can buy. To address that point, 

it is worth mentioning that the FTC has reported that adults are 

involved in the purchase of a video game 83 percent of the time. 

Similar studies conducted by the industry have found that a parent 

or adult is involved 92 percent of the time. Simply put, parents are 

the gatekeepers, as well they should be, when it comes to which 

games come into the home. 

I would like to close today by saying simply that nobody takes 

these issues more seriously than we do. ESRB values immensely 

the trust that millions of parents have placed in our ratings, and 

we fiercely intend to preserve that trust. The vast majority of parents can and do make sensible choices about the games their children play, and our ratings consistently play a critical role in making those choices. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vance appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Ms. Vance. 

Representative Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF JOHNSON, ASSISTANT MAJORITY 

LEADER, MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Representative JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Feingold. My name is Jeff Johnson. I am a third-term Republican 

member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. I am Assistant 

24

Majority Leader and Chairman of the House Civil Law Committee. 

But more importantly, I am the father of two little boys who would 

play video games 12 hours a day if we did not limit them to about 

3 hours a week. And I should add that I am not opposed to video 

games. In fact, I enjoy those 3 hours on the weekends with one of 

my sons playing football or soccer or some other video game, unless 

one of is naughty and we have it taken away from us. But I do not 

believe that video games are inherently bad. 

I do believe that some are, though, and I am the House author 

of a bill in Minnesota that takes a rather modest step towards restricting access by our kids to extremely violent or sexually explicit 

video games. And this is a bipartisan effort. Senator Sandy Pappas 

is a Democrat from St. Paul. She has already passed this bill off 

the Senate floor, and I am hopeful to do the same in the House 

within the next few weeks. 

The bill is really very simple. It is very narrowly tailored. Frankly, it is probably more narrowly tailored than I would like, but because of the constitutional issues, this is what we thought we ought 

to do. And what it says is that children under 17 cannot rent or 

buy video games that are rated either M or AO by the ESRB. If 

they attempt to do so, they are subject to a $25 civil penalty or civil 

fine. Our bill also requires that each retailer of these games in 

Minnesota has to post a clearly visible sign regarding the restriction. That is the entire bill. 

My intent with this legislation is not to make criminals out of kids or to raise money $25 at a time for the State of Minnesota, 

and, frankly, I do not expect that would happen even if we are able 

to pass this bill and make it law. What I am hopeful for is that 

by passing the new law we may get the attention of at least a few 

of the painfully oblivious parents in our State who are really paying absolutely no attention to some of the garbage that their little 

kids are playing in their own homes on their video game machines. 

As I mentioned, I have two little boys at home, and our oldest 

is in second grade. He is 7. And I am amazed at how many of his 

little friends—and this was last year, actually, when he was in first 

grade. I am amazed at how many of them regularly play M-rated 

video games. Now, I do not blame that on the ESA or the companies that make these things. I blame that on their parents, and 

what I want to try to do is at least get their attention because I 

would like to believe that if some of these parents knew what was 

in these games, if we could just get their attention, they might put 

a stop to it. 

I have been working on other ways to get the attention of parents in Minnesota with Dr. David Walsh and the Minneapolisbased National Institute on Media and the Family, which is probably the most well-respected organization in the country addressing 

the impact of the media on children and families. But I also believe 

that we have to do something legislatively, and you have already 

mentioned it, Mr. Chairman, and a couple of the testifiers did, and 

we saw it on the screen. We are not talking about the equivalent 

of an R-rated slasher movie here. Many of these games are absolutely, to use your term, horrific, and I have actually rented some 

of them so I could see before I wrote my bill. They allow kids to 

learn firsthand how to kill people and how to torture people and 

25

how to mutilate people and how to rape people in graphic detail 

and in vivid reality. And the key difference from the movie is they 

do not watch other people doing it. They get to do it themselves. 

And in many of these games, the more violent and gruesome you 

are, the more points you score. 

I cannot leave today without being certain that everyone comprehends the nature of the violence in these games. We saw some 

examples on the screen. Those are not even the worst examples 

that I have seen, Mr. Chairman, and I want to share with you just 

very brief descriptions of four popular video games that I know are 

available at large retailers and video rental stores in Minnesota, 

because I have seen them. 

The most popular game in America last year was ‘‘Grand Theft 

Auto,’’ which you had on the video that we saw. The player is a 

young man who is trying to gain the respect of street gangsters and 

other criminals, and, of course, you are that person. And the more 

creative and brutal you are in killing innocent people, and in some 

cases cops, the more respect you gain and the more points you 

score. 

One example in this game of a creative kill would be to beat 

someone to death with a bat until he drowns in his own blood, and 

then when the ambulance comes, you can actually kill the ambulance driver and use the ambulance to kill some more people on the 

street. 

Another piece of this game is one that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. You can score points by having sex with a prostitute, and 

then if you beat her to death afterwards and get your money back, 

you may score some more points. 

‘‘Clock Tower 3’’ is another game that is readily available. It is 

a survival horror game about a young girl who is being chased by 

murderers who want to kill her and her family. In one scene, a little girl with pigtails is caught by her attacker who repeatedly 

smashes her head against a wall with a sledgehammer. Later you 

see her ghost covered in blood playing a piano while her father is 

impaled onto a fence. And another scene shows a killer gouging out 

a man’s eyeballs and then lowering the man’s elderly mother into 

a vat of acid as she begs for mercy. 

‘‘Manhunt’’ is another fairly popular game, and I know that is 

available at my large video rental store because whenever I go with 

my son and he wants to look at the latest ‘‘Madden NFL Game,’’ 

there is ‘‘Manhunt’’ right next to it. And in this game, the player 

is a mass murderer who sometimes wears a clown mask to disguise 

himself. You score points by, of course, killing people in creative 

and gruesome ways. For example, you can use a piano wire to grab 

a man from behind and saw at his neck, pushing your foot up 

against his back until his head falls off. You can suffocate someone 

with a clear plastic bag. You can twist large shards of glass into 

someone’s eyeballs or you can use a sickle to split someone’s stomach or stab a crowbar into the back of someone’s head and pry it 

apart. 

And my last example is ‘‘Postal 2,’’ and I think we saw an example of ‘‘Postal 1’’ on the video earlier. This is a serial killer game 

where, of course, you score points by killing innocent people. There 

are a lot of ways of doing it, but one piece that I found interesting 

26

was that you can actually possibly score extra points by urinating 

into a victim’s mouth before you kill him or her. And you can even 

open fire on a Gay Pride march, a minority community celebration, 

and a parade of police officers. 

Mr. Chairman, comparing this in any way to playing Frisbee is 

just beyond my belief, because it is not. 

I do not enjoy reading these descriptions. They literally make me 

sick to my stomach, especially knowing that little kids all over the 

State of Minnesota are playing them. But people need to know how 

horrific these games really are, and I think by describing them you 

can better understand why some of us feel that we absolutely have 

to do something about it. 

To the bill, and I will keep it very brief. We have crafted a very 

narrow-language bill in our State because we are concerned about 

the cases out there that exist with respect to content-based restrictions. But despite the dire warnings from the ESA when I first 

brought this bill up last year, I believe that our bill could survive 

a constitutional challenge, and here is why. Three brief reasons. 

The only case on point with any precedential value in Minnesota 

is the Eighth Circuit case of IDSA v. St. Louis County. The rest of 

them are without our jurisdiction, and that case came down over 

3 years ago, and I believe was argued nearly 4 years ago. There 

is a big difference between our bill and the bill in that case. 

The St. Louis County ordinance in question first was a great deal 

broader than our very narrowly tailored bill in Minnesota, and that 

is a very important distinction because not only the Eighth Circuit 

but all of the other cases, I believe, where a court has either struck 

down or placed an injunction on one of these statutes or ordinances 

say that we need to more narrowly define the statute. 

Second, the St. Louis County ordinance that is in this case and 

all the other laws that have been struck down have been subject 

to the argument that they are unconstitutionally vague because 

they restricted video games which fell under a specific statutory 

definition of ‘‘violence’’ or ‘‘excessive violence.’’ So the retailer could 

not look at the box and say, ‘‘Oh, this falls under the law.’’ What 

we have done is we have said that the restrictions only apply to 

those games that are rated in a certain way so that you can look 

at the box and immediately determine. And I realize this isn’t ideal 

because the industry or at least a private entity will have control 

over which games fall within the category, but it is all we have got. 

And I would certainly welcome a future discussion on possible Government rating of these video games. 

And then finally, and most importantly, the St. Louis County 

case was argued more than 3 years ago, and the court determined 

at that time that there was no compelling State interest because 

they were unable to find a credible link between excessively violent 

video games and psychological health of children. And if you actually read the case, you will see that almost nothing of value was 

offered. One psychologist testified in court— 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Mr. Johnson, let’s wrap it up here if we 

can. 

Representative JOHNSON. Thank you. The difference is that a lot 

has happened in the last 3 years, and, frankly, I think we have 

heard in the last hour more evidence than what the Eighth Circuit 

27

was presented. So my belief, and my strong belief, even though I 

may have a misplaced faith in the court system, is that our case 

will survive a constitutional challenge. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL M. SMITH, JENNER AND BLOCK LLP, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Feingold and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the constitutionality 

of State regulation of violent video games, and I ask for consent 

that my full statement, including the relevant attachments, be 

made a part of the hearing record. 

Senator FEINGOLD. [Presiding.] Without objection. 

Mr. SMITH. My perspective is that of an appellate advocate who 

has litigated First Amendment issues for the better part of three 

decades. Most recently I have represented the video game industry 

in litigation regarding the constitutionality of State laws that ban 

distribution to minors of video games with violent content. In each 

of those cases, as well as every other case to consider the issue, the 

courts have struck down legal restrictions on minors’ access to violent video games. Those outcomes reflect the fact that there is no 

general exception to the First Amendment for laws that target minors’ access to protected speech. Any attempt at such regulation of 

distribution of video games based on their violent content, either at 

the State or Federal level, would under no circumstances that I can 

contemplate be upheld. 

Every court that has looked at this has found that the State regulation in question did not pass constitutional muster because the 

Government lacks a legitimate and compelling interest which must 

be based on substantial evidence in the record for restricting violent video game content and access by minors. The kinds of testimony presented here today in favor of legal restrictions on video 

games have been rejected out of hand by every court that has considered them. 

First, as a matter of law, any attempt to justify content-based 

suppression of speech based on the theory that particular content 

carries too much risk of causing listeners to engage in bad behavior 

is categorically ruled out under the First Amendment. Our Constitution mandates that the Government regulate behavior, not 

speech that is perceived as likely to cause undesirable behavior 

among listeners or recipients. There is only a single very narrow 

exception to that rule, the Brandenburg incitement standard, and 

that test requires that the speech have been intended to and e likely to incite imminent lawless action like a mob being whipped up 

in the street. As the courts have recognized, video games do not remotely meet that standard. 

Similarly, courts have rejected the argument that restrictions on 

violent video games can be justified as a means to prevent psychological harm to minors. That is because the Government does not 

28

have a legitimate let alone compelling interest in regulating speech 

in order to affect citizens’ thoughts, attitudes, and personalities. 

This is through for minors as well. The Supreme Court has made 

abundantly clear that the Government cannot suppress speech to 

minors solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. That is simply not a role 

that the Government may play in our society. 

In any event, factually, the social science claims that minors who 

are exposed to depictions of violence in video games are more likely 

to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobe of the brain, or to exhibit violent anti-social or aggressive behavior have found absolutely no judicial acceptance. Courts have considered them wholly unpersuasive and not 

even approaching substantial evidence, and one factor in that is 

the precipitous drop in youth violence per capita that has occurred 

in this country since 1994 when the most violent and graphic 

games were introduced in the range of a 43-percent reduction. 

Now, singling out video games from all other media containing 

violent images constitutes another fatal flaw in State video game 

legislation. Because movies, books, magazines, music, art, television, the Internet, to which almost all modern American children 

are exposed, are left unaffected by these laws, they cannot conceivably advance any purported State interest. In addition, courts require that a regulation of expression be the least speech-restrictive 

means available to achieve the bill’s end. Given the multitude of 

other options available to the Government, such as parental education and parental controls that are being installed in the video 

game machines themselves, legislative censoring of violent video 

games has consistently been held unconstitutional. 

Finally, it is worth noting that the proposed Federal legislation 

restricting access to video games would fare no better than the 

State regulations that have been struck down. The proposed Federal Family Entertainment Protection Act would impose Federal 

penalties on the sale or rental of a video game rated M for mature 

or AO for Adults Only by the ESRB to minors under the age of 17. 

Like the State laws, the proposed Federal act would impose a content-based restriction on expression that is fully protected by the 

First Amendment and would without question be struck down by 

the courts. 

For all of these reasons, among others, I urge this Subcommittee 

not to support unconstitutional legislation that has been consistently struck down in courts around the country. Even beyond their 

repugnance to the Constitution, it is clearly the view of the courts, 

and likely most Americans, that families and not the Government 

should be making the decisions about what type of content children 

should be exposed to. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Professor Saunders? And we just called for a vote. My colleague 

went over for that. We will hear your testimony, and then hopeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 028337 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28337.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
29

fully he will be back after my questioning, and we can keep this 

going without going into a recess. Professor Saunders? 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN W. SAUNDERS, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the shielding 

of children from violent video games. Those thoughts are set out in 

more detail in my written statement. I am Kevin W. Saunders, 

Profess of Law at Michigan State University. I have spent the last 

dozen years studying the constitutional issues surrounding attempts to limit the access of children to depictions of extreme violence, and I have been involved in most of the recent round of attempts to so limit children. I am bothered by the view that while 

these games are poison, the First Amendment requires that children have access to that poison. While the attempts have thus far 

been struck down, there are bases on which restrictions may overcome First Amendment limits. 

I also would say I agree that the first line of defense does have 

to be families, but I think families need help, that you cannot ride 

herd over your child every minute of every day, and by simply requiring that materials not be provided directly to children, it requires that their parents make the one-time decision to provide 

that material or not to provide that material. 

Turning to those bases, the first two potential bases I will mention only briefly have met with at best limited success in the 

courts, and later courts may take the earlier decisions as authoritative, although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the theories 

involved. One approach is to argue that sufficiently violent material, when presented to children, may be obscene. I argued for this 

thesis in my book ‘‘Violence as Obscenity,’’ and it was accepted by 

the Federal district court in the Indianapolis litigation but was rejected by the Seventh Circuit. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has never ruled that violent material cannot be restricted. It has struck down a violence statute as vague, but specifically warned against the more general conclusion that violent material cannot be restricted. 

The second theory is that video game play, like the play of pinball machines, is not an activity protected by the First Amendment. 

This was the theory of the district court in the St. Louis case, but 

it was rejected by the Eighth Circuit. The important distinction, 

one not spelled out by either court, is between the creative activity 

of the programmer and the communication of the product of that 

activity to the player on the one hand and the player’s playing of 

the game on the other. This sort of distinction was recently recognized by the Fourth Circuit in distinguishing between the band at 

a community dance and a dancer on the floor. 

The theory to which the courts have paid the most attention is 

based on the claim that, even if violent video game play is protected by the First Amendment, restrictions may stand based on 

the danger the games pose. Infringing a constitutional right does 

not mean the limitations are necessarily struck down. Instead, a 

restriction must meet strict scrutiny. It must be narrowly tailored 

to a compelling governmental interest. All the courts have accepted 

30

that physical and psychological well-being of youth is a compelling 

interest, but the courts have not been willing to find the restrictions necessary to that interest. 

The courts have questioned the scientific studies and have questioned whether evidence of correlation between violent video game 

play and real-world violence demonstrates causation. This is particularly interesting given the overwhelming consensus of the 

health and science community that media violence causes realworld violence. 

As an aside, let me say there is a new body of evidence developing that was not presented today, a neuroscience in the violent 

video game play on the development of brains in adolescents, a 

study at the Indiana University Medical School that shows a difference in functioning in the prefrontal cortex of children with exposure to violent media. This was raised in the Illinois case. The 

industry produced a witness who said, well, maybe this judgmental 

function is being done in some other part of the brain. No evidence 

that it is being done in any other part of the brain, but it could 

happen, I suppose. Even if that is true, it still shows a brain dysfunction that is similar to that of children who have disruptive developmental disabilities. So I think that is a developing area that 

needs to be followed. 

I am not a scientist. I do not have the understanding of the 

issues that others testifying today do have. It seems likely that 

none of the judges involved have been scientists either, and we 

would almost be open to recognizing the continuing development of 

this area of research, both psychology and neuroscience. 

From a legal point of view, it is important to note that the courts’ 

decisions on the scientific issues can have no long-term precedential effect. Unlike conclusions of law, the conclusions on science are 

contingent. A court’s conclusion that the science fails to establish 

the danger perceived by the public and the legislature is only a 

conclusion that the science at the time was lacking. It does not establish the conclusion that the science at the time of any future 

legislation or litigation is also lacking. Each time the issue arises, 

the courts must consider the science anew. 

Last, returning to the issues I addressed in a recent book, ‘‘Saving Our Children from the First Amendment,’’ that argues for lesser First Amendment protection for expression to children, I think 

it important to consider the costs of two possible errors here. If violent video games do cause an increase in real-world violence and 

courts refuse to allow limitations, the cost is psychologically damaged children and, in the extreme, deaths. For the other possible 

error, allowing restrictions when media violence does not, in fact, 

have the effects suggested, the costs would seem to be to the values 

behind the First Amendment. But the most important values 

served by protecting free expression are those tied to self-government. To be self-governing, we must have access to information, 

but children do not vote. True, as Judge Posner argued, they need 

to be competent voters when they turn 18, and that is why I have 

counseled legislators to set limits at 17. That allows a year to play 

as many violent video games as it takes to become a competent 

voter. The other major value thought by some to underlie the ExVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 028337 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28337.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
31

pression Clauses is autonomy, but we do not really believe in autonomy for children, or we would allow them to smoke and drink. 

I hope legislatures will continue in their efforts to protect children from this serious danger. Absent a Supreme Court decision on 

the issues, at least some lower courts may consider the constitutional theories suggested. Even with a negative Supreme Court 

opinion on all the issues, a failure to find adequate science at one 

point does not bar legislation and litigation at a later point. Despite 

past losses, as the science continues to develop, the effort can continue, and the danger theory is never permanently dismissed. 

Once again, thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Professor Saunders, for the 

testimony and you work in this area. I have a few questions I want 

to try to ask, and I will ask I be advised when the vote is down 

to 2–1/2 minutes. If my colleague has not come back, what we will 

do is probably adjourn at that point in time if he is not being with 

2–1/2 minutes left on the vote. I might ask if his staff could find 

out if he is definitely coming back. 

Representative Johnson, what would be the most useful or helpful thing we could do at the Federal level, for you at the State level 

in dealing with this issue? What information, what could we do to 

be the most helpful? 

Representative JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I think two things come 

to mind. No. 1, anything you can do to provide more evidence than 

we already have—and I am under the impression that there may 

be enough there in front of a certain court to show a link and a 

compelling State interest. But anything that the Government could 

help establish in that area by funding something would be very 

helpful. And then as I mentioned, I think at least there should be 

a discussion of a rating system different than what we have, and 

I don’t think the rating system we have is necessarily wrong, but 

I think it does pose some separate potential constitutional problems. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. More information in the rating system? 

Representative JOHNSON. No. A rating system that is done by a 

separate entity. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Outside group. 

Representative JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. We have been looking at that for some 

period of time, and this is one, you know, where you have got the 

manufacturers that set up the entity to rate it, it does not lend 

much confidence to me about the independence of that. 

Professor Saunders, what should we do at the Federal level to be 

most helpful for these State and local efforts? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Clearly, anything that can be done to help further research on both the psychological and the neurological issues 

I think would be important. There is, of course, always the possibility of a Federal statute as well, and Congressional findings of 

fact may help to show up alongside the testimony that has been offered by psychologists. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Anything on ratings, any studies on target marketing? We have seen a number of people in the entertainVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 028337 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28337.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
32

ment industry target, market age-inappropriate material where 

they would take an M-rated item and market it to a 10-year-old? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. The problem, of course, in that area is that it is 

not illegal to provide the material to children. If you are advertising illegal material to an audience—cigarettes to children, for example—then there is a legitimate basis to go about that. Not that 

I do not think it would be legitimate, but under the court’s view 

of the First Amendment, children would have a right to this material. 

So you are going to have to get around the problems that have 

been raised in the legal decisions so far in order to do what you 

are suggesting. 

In terms of whether or not the ratings are adequate, I am not 

an expert in terms of the ratings, and I have been content so far 

to try to at least enforce the ratings. The games that the industry 

itself says are inappropriate to children, simply try to get stores 

not to sell those games to children. And the industry, despite saying these games are inappropriate for children, comes in and fights 

us in litigation and says we have a right to sell these games to children and children have a right to buy them. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Vance, I want to ask you, you represent the industry, have done so very effectively. A lot of these 

games turn your stomach, too, don’t they, when you see these clips? 

Ms. VANCE. I certainly would not bring some of those games 

home for my children. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. And yet they are part of your industry 

group. They are manufactured by people that are part of your industry or association? 

Ms. VANCE. Well, anybody can submit a game to the ESRB to be 

rated. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. But I am having a little difficulty understanding. If you look at these and you are just saying, you know, 

killing a cop and then putting him on fire with gasoline and kicking him in the groin, that does not seem to be really encouraging 

scenery to put forward. Why wouldn’t the organization itself just 

drum out people, saying, you know, look, we have got certain 

standards, we think this is important that people be able to have 

access to it? Why doesn’t the industry itself police some of those 

items and saying this is just degrading to our industry? 

Ms. VANCE. Well, our job is not to censor. Our job is to make sure 

that the product is accurately labeled, and all the games that were 

shown were— 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I am not asking you to censor. I am asking you to look after your own industry. 

Ms. VANCE. I represent consumers. That is my mission. I want 

to make sure that consumers are informed and the information is 

on all the packages and in all the advertising is informative. And 

the games that you are specifically referring to are all rated for 17 

or 18 and older. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. So there is nothing that would not be inappropriate for your industry to put out for sale? 

Ms. VANCE. Again, our job is not to censor. Our job is to enforce 

the system that we have, which means that— 

33

Chairman BROWNBACK. But I just want to understand that there 

is nothing that would come across the industry that you guys 

would say we just are not going to let you guys be a part of this 

industry, we are not going to allow you to be a part of this association. You are just saying, look, we do not censor anybody, so everything is legal and everything is OK. 

Ms. VANCE. If it is a game, we will rate it. We can rate it in the 

most restricted categories, and we can apply a number of content 

descriptors that would be very informative to consumers before 

they purchase. But our job is not to censor. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Nothing inappropriate. 

I noted, too, you were saying that most game aren’t M-rated, yet 

in 2004, the top two video games sold were, No. 1, ‘‘Grand Theft 

Auto San Andreas,’’ No. 2, ‘‘Halo.’’ Both are M-rated, involving extreme violence and sexually explicit scenes. 

Ms. VANCE. In 2004, there were three games in the top ten. In 

2005, there were no M games in the top ten. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. You were not fully representing things. 

You may have said ‘‘last year’’ but the year before— 

Ms. VANCE. I did say ‘‘last year.’’ I did say ‘‘last year.’’ 

Chairman BROWNBACK. But the year before that, I would hope 

you would fully represent the industry that is saying, now, wait a 

minute, we had a pretty good M-rated year in 2004. 

Ms. VANCE. The games themselves in terms— 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Is that true? 

Ms. VANCE. I am sorry. The question was? 

Chairman BROWNBACK. In 2004, your top two games were Mrated. 

Ms. VANCE. They were, sir. They represented about 15 percent 

of the sales overall in the industry. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. The top two rated in sales. 

Ms. VANCE. They were. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. So congratulations for selling a lot of violent games in— 

Ms. VANCE. I did not sell them, sir. I just rated them, and they 

were both rated for 17 and older. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I am going to have to slip on out. We will 

go into recess until Senator Feingold can come back. I have got to 

get over and vote, and when he comes back, then he will reconvene 

for some more questions. 

Thank you very much. We are in recess. 

[Recess 3:50 to 3:56 p.m.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. [Presiding.] I will call the Subcommittee 

hearing back to order, and I understand it is my opportunity to ask 

some questions of the panel, which I appreciate. 

The factual questions that the first panel examined seem to have 

played a significant role in the court’s evaluation of State and local 

regulations of video games. I understand the goals of these wellintentioned State and local legislators has been to protect children 

from possible ill effects of playing these games. 

For the lawyers and the legislator on the panel, to what extend 

do each of your legal arguments about the constitutionality of these 

laws depend on whether violent video games can be proven to 

cause violent behavior in children? And, more generally, why do 

34

you think courts have consistently struck down laws attempting to 

regulate violent video games? Let’s start with Representative Johnson. 

Representative JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. I have paid most 

attention, to be honest, to the one case in my own jurisdiction, 

which is that Eighth Circuit case, and that court clearly struck 

down—one of the reasons it struck down the ordinance in that case 

was that there was scant, if any, evidence presented of a link between violent video games and behavior, negative behavior with 

kids. 

My understanding, without being a scientist myself but just from 

sitting here even today, is that the science has advanced in the last 

3 to 4 years, and so my belief is that there is more evidence to 

present, certainly a lot more evidence that was presented to that 

particular court. And without having thought through all the different arguments we could make, I think that is an important piece 

of my argument with respect to the constitutionality of our particular statute, that we are going to have to show that there is a 

compelling State interest. It is going to be hard to get past the protection that is there without showing that. So I believe that it is 

going to be necessary, but I also believe that we can do it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. But in terms of all the different courts that 

have struck this down, obviously you are aware that there is a concern about content-based regulation. 

Representative JOHNSON. Of course. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Could you comment on that you acknowledge 

that—to what extent you acknowledge the danger of such things? 

Representative JOHNSON. Oh, absolutely. I entirely agree, and 

that is why we have tried to craft such a narrow bill, because part 

of the argument in the other cases was that there was not enough 

evidence to show a compelling State interest, but there are also arguments in those cases that either the statute was unconstitutionally vague or was too broad, and we have tried to address all three 

of those issues, or at least the latter two that we can address, in 

our bill. So I think it is a unique bill in that way, and that is why 

I am hopeful at the very least that we could pass muster with the 

court. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Representative. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Senator, I think it is not simply a factual issue. 

As I said in my statement, there is a very, very high legal standard, which is the strict scrutiny standard, which is never—I cannot 

think of a single example in the history of the Federal courts where 

a content-based law which has been subjected to that level of scrutiny has been upheld. In addition, you have this Brandenburg principle that if your justification is we think the people who receive 

the speech are going to behave badly, that is not a justification categorically. 

So I think there are very high legal hurdles that on their face 

are almost impossible to get over. There is, however, a factual problem as well. We had a trial last November in the Illinois case 

where the leading researcher in this area, who is an advocate of 

legal regulation, a psychologist, Dr. Anderson from Iowa State, took 

the stand and had to actually explain on cross-examination the limVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:17 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 028337 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28337.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
35

itations of the research that is out there. And he acknowledged, as 

he had to, that there is no long-term causal inquiry that has ever 

been made into the effects of video games. The evidence of that 

kind is not there. But he also acknowledged that what studies do 

exist do not show that children are more vulnerable to effects than 

adults. They do not show that video games are any more severe in 

their effects, even under his standards, than television. And they 

do not show that the graphic kinds of games that we have seen 

here today have any more severe effects than the cartoonish games 

that are created for little children. 

So the research that he himself was conducting and describing—

and he does eight out of ten of the studies that anybody ever 

cites—is so limited in what it tells the courts that it does not even 

get them to first base, frankly. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I think it is useful that you make the 

clear distinction between causality and the legal standard, which 

are two important distinct issues. 

Professor Saunders? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. There are a lot of cases that have been cited 

here, and in my statement I talk about two of them—or really 

three of them in terms of obscenity, in terms of being not protected 

by the First Amendment, like pinball games and in terms of different layers of protection, different levels of protection from the 

First Amendment. But it is easiest to get the court to accept a challenge, I think, based on danger than on accepting a new view of 

the Constitution. 

I think there are problems with judges understanding statistics. 

In that Illinois case, the judge said something to the effect of some 

studies do not show this kind of correlation, and some studies, in 

fact, show a negative correlation. And I am suggesting, you know, 

if you look at baseball statistics, I might out-hit—well, I would 

never do it, but I might have out-hit Ted Williams in one game, 

but that does not mean that I am a better hitter than he is, or was. 

It is over a season that you make those distinctions, and meta 

analysis which Dr. Anderson has done does tend to show—to even 

out the variations from study to study. 

It surprises me that Professor Anderson made that admission, if 

he made that admission, because he has in one of his articles called 

violent video games ‘‘the perfect learning environment for violence,’’ 

indicating that they are different from television. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Professor. 

One more question. Mr. Smith and Professor Saunders, how have 

courts treated laws regulating the use of video games by children 

as opposed to adults? Is there anything comparable to the ‘‘harmful 

to minors’’ doctrine in the indecency context? 

Mr. SMITH. The courts have repeatedly rejected that argument, 

that there should be a lesser standard, an argument that Professor 

Saunders made very eloquently in some of his published writings. 

But the courts in at least three circuits have said that there is no 

‘‘harmful to minors’’ exception except for sexual content, obscenity. 

And that is the Eighth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and the Sixth 

Circuit have all rejected the notion that we are going to apply a 

lesser standard than strict scrutiny just because somebody comes 

in and says it is a violent and we should call it harmful to minors. 

36

Senator FEINGOLD. Professor? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Smith is correct there. The Sixth Circuit 

cases were before my work was published in that area, but the Seventh Circuit case, the district court in Indianapolis accepted the 

theory, and the Seventh Circuit rejected it. The Eighth Circuit, it 

was not the focus of the arguments in those cases, but it was not 

accepted there either. 

Senator FEINGOLD. It is my understanding the Chairman wants 

me to conclude the hearing. Is that correct? Or does he want to 

come back? 

All right. Well, I believe the Chairman wants me to conclude the 

hearing. Let me thank the witnesses on both panels very much for 

your testimony and your hard work in responding to our questions. 

We look forward to working with you on this issue, and I thank you 

all. 

This concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

37


28337.001
38


28337.002
39


28337.003
40


28337.004
41


28337.005
42


28337.006
43


28337.007
44


28337.008
45


28337.009
46


28337.010
47


28337.011
48


28337.012
49


28337.013
50


28337.014
51


28337.015
52


28337.016
53


28337.017
54


28337.018
55


28337.019
56


28337.020
57


28337.021
58


28337.022
59


28337.023
60


28337.024
61


28337.025
62


28337.026
63


28337.027
64


28337.028
65


28337.029
66


28337.030
67


28337.031
68


28337.032
69


28337.033
70


28337.034
71


28337.035
72


28337.036
73


28337.037
74


28337.038
75


28337.039
76


28337.040
77


28337.041
78


28337.042
79


28337.043
80


28337.044
81


28337.045
82


28337.046
83


28337.047
84


28337.048
85


28337.049
86


28337.050
87


28337.051
88


28337.052
89


28337.053
90


28337.054
91


28337.055
92


28337.056
93


28337.057
94


28337.058
95


28337.059
96


28337.060
97


28337.061
98


28337.062
99


28337.063
100


28337.064
101


28337.065
102


28337.066
103


28337.067
104


28337.068
105


28337.069
106


28337.070
107


28337.071
108


28337.072
109


28337.073
110


28337.074
111


28337.075
112


28337.076
113


28337.077
114


28337.078
115


28337.079
116


28337.080
117


28337.081
118


28337.082
119


28337.083
120


28337.084
121


28337.085
122


28337.086
123


28337.087
124


28337.088
125


28337.089
126


28337.090
127


28337.091
128


28337.092
129


28337.093
130


28337.094
131


28337.095
132


28337.096
133


28337.097
134


28337.098
135


28337.099
136


28337.100
137


28337.101
138


28337.102
139


28337.103
140


28337.104
141


28337.105
142


28337.106
143


28337.107
144


28337.108
145


28337.109
146


28337.110
147


28337.111
148


28337.112
149


28337.113
150


28337.114
151


28337.115
152


28337.116
153


28337.117
154


28337.118
155


28337.119
156


28337.120
157


28337.121
158


28337.122
159


28337.123
160


28337.124
161


28337.125
162


28337.126
163


28337.127
164


28337.128
165


28337.129
166


28337.130
167


28337.131
168


28337.132
169


28337.133
170


28337.134
171


28337.135
172


28337.136
173


28337.137
174


28337.138
175


28337.139
176


28337.140
177


28337.141
178


28337.142
179


28337.143
180


28337.144
181


28337.145
182


28337.146
183


28337.147
184


28337.148
185


28337.149
186


28337.150
187


28337.151
188


28337.152
189


28337.153
190


28337.154
191


28337.155
192


28337.156
193


28337.157
194


28337.158
195


28337.159
196


28337.160
197


28337.161
198


28337.162
199


28337.163
200


28337.164
201


28337.165
202


28337.166
203


28337.167
204


28337.168
205


28337.169
206


28337.170
207


28337.171
208


28337.172
209


28337.173
210


28337.174
211


28337.175
212


28337.176
213


28337.177
214


28337.178
215


28337.179
216


28337.180
217


28337.181
218


28337.182
219


28337.183
220


28337.184
221


28337.185
222


28337.186
223


28337.187
224


28337.188
225


28337.189
226


28337.190
227


28337.191
228


28337.192
229


28337.193
230


28337.194
231


28337.195
232


28337.196
233


28337.197
234


28337.198
235


28337.199
236

Æ


28337.200