The Legal Status of Digital Games: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Regulations Concerning Violence in Video Games

Abstract

This article examines the legal regulation of violence in video games from a comparative perspective, focusing on the structural tension between freedom of expression and the protection of children. It first analyzes the United States model through the decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, in which video games were recognized as a form of expression protected under the First Amendment, establishing a very high constitutional threshold against restrictions based on violent content. It then considers Australia’s mandatory, state-supported classification regime and Germany’s strict youth protection system, which combines the USK age-rating framework with the indizierung mechanism. South Korea’s Shutdown Law is examined as a behavioral control model that targets gaming time and practices rather than content itself, yet remains controversial in terms of both effectiveness and legitimacy. The article interprets these national approaches in light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the principles of the best interests of the child, access to information, and protection from harmful content, alongside the International Committee of the Red Cross’s soft-law approach to war-themed games. Under conditions of scientific uncertainty, it discusses the contrast between the United States’ liberty-oriented model based on a high evidentiary threshold and the precautionary, protection-oriented approaches adopted by Australia and Germany. The final section addresses emerging regulatory challenges related to the globalization of digital distribution, in-game economic models, loot boxes, and addiction risks, highlighting transnational initiatives such as IARC and emphasizing the need for a flexible, multi-layered legal balance that protects children and vulnerable groups without undermining the expressive and artistic value of video games.