The American videogames industry today hit back at the State of Michigan and its controversial decision to restrict the sale of videogames containing certain violent content, stating that it contravenes the US Constitution's First Amendment on free speech.

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) will file suit asking that the state’s new Act be overturned, recalling similar laws found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis and Washington State, incurring taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in the process.

"If this law is implemented, it will not only limit First Amendment rights for Michigan's residents, but, by virtue of its vagueness, it will also create a huge amount of confusion for Michigan's retailers, parents, and video game developers," said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA, the trade group representing U.S. computer and video game publishers. "I'm confident the court will affirm our position given the rulings on similar statutes in other jurisdictions; indeed, the facts, the science, the law, and the U.S. Constitution have not changed since those decisions were handed down."

Focusing on the bill’s “hopelessly vague” definition of content subject to the Act, the ESA maintains that retailers will have no objective way to determine whether they are in compliance with the law and game developers not knowing whether their games would be covered.

Alleging that the bill will turn retailers into surrogate parents, the ESA states that video games are being unreasonably and unfairly singled out. President of the ESA, Douglas Lowenstein, acknowledges that although a few games have content that could cause offense, the same can be said for TV, films, music and books and asks the government not to regulate the sale of video games as is the case with these other entertainment industries.

Lowenstein moved on to talk about the target audience of video games, "In 2004, the average game buyer was 37 years old and the average game player was 30," Lowenstein said. "Knowing this, our industry creates a wide range of content for a diverse consumer audience, just as other entertainment industries do. And, it's illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. How can you treat a video game based on James Bond any different than a book or movie based on the same subject matter?"

Lowenstein ultimately concludes that parents, not the government or the industry, should be responsible for what goes into the home.

Finally the ESA looks to the good responsibility that parents and retailers are currently taking, citing the Federal Trade Commission research that suggests parents are involved in the purchase or rental of games 83% of the time, and referencing industry data that shows night out of ten parents monitor the games their kids play.

Retailers have also taken responsibility preventing the sale of Mature rated videogames to persons under 17, although the National Institute on Media and the Family found last autumn that retailers prevented the sale of M titles to minors 66% of the time prior to the new enforcement system.