Why would some legislators believe that the six-part voluntary labeling system for video games is not sufficient to protect minors?

The video game industry uses a voluntary rating system that includes six age-specific labels. Should video game makers also be required to attach labels to their games that warn parents of excessive violence? When California legislated this requirement, video software dealers sued.

The act defined a violent video game as one in which “the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” While agreeing that some video games are unquestionably violent by everyday standards, the trial court pointed out, as did the federal court that heard the appeal, that many video games are based on popular novels or motion pictures and have complex plot lines. Accordingly, the court found that the definition of a violent video game was unconstitutionally vague and thus violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. The court also noted the existence of the voluntary rating system. The state appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also found that the statute’s definition of a violent video game was unconstitutionally broad. The appeals court noted that other federal circuit courts had already ruled against extending restrictions on sex-based content to restrictions on violence in video games.