Online-game addiction is known to be concurrent with side effects such lack of sleep, waning health, disturbed work or schoolwork, depression or behavioral disorder. In fact, however, there aren`t yet any well-established definition of online-game addiction nor any obvious medical evidence on the causality of game and addiction, but `a game-addiction bill` that defined online game as addictive substance along with alcohol, drug or gambling was proposed, which have touched off heated disputes among the political circles, the game industry and the educational community.
There are always both positives and negatives in online games. On one hand, it`s needed to regulate online games, but on the other, they should be promoted as one of promising industries. In the end, the approval or disapproval of the game addiction bill will depend on whether it could be accepted as a rational regulation from the consitutional perspective or not. That is, the goals of the regulation should carefully be considered from the constitutional viewpoint, and whether the goals of the regulation infringe upon the principle of definiteness, the principle of proportionality and the right to freedom of expression should consequently be analyzed.
First, the causal relationship of online games and addiction isn`t clearly and objectively be certified, and whether it should be defined as `addition` or `overuse` isn`t yet determined, either. In terms of the coverage of addiction, however, the bill indicates that even `media contents involving Internet games` are included in it. This is a quite obscure and comprehensive concept, which runs counter to the principle of definiteness in that every kind of massmedia is included such as films or TV dramas. Second, the bill is to resolve the problem of online-game addiction, and it doesn`t hurt the legitimacy of lawmaking nor the balance of legal interests in that regard. But there isn`t no proven definite causal relationship between online games and addiction, and setting a limit on the production, distribution, sales and advertisement of online games could not be understood as ensuring the propriety of means nor satisfying the principle of least restriction. Third, restricting games, which are sophisticated, complex and liberal creations, is a severe infringement upon the will of expression, which will finally result in breaking it.
Accordingly, the game addiction bill is said to possibly violate the constitution. To guarantee the rationality of the regulation, online-game addiction should clearly be defined first of all, and what causes it should be eliminated. In addition, the game industry should suggest the right direction for online games to maximize the proper function of games in a more educational manner.