March 8, 2006 5:50 PM PST
Senate panel OKs video game study
- Related Stories
Senators threaten new Net porn crackdownJanuary 19, 2006
Senators target 'graphic' video gamesNovember 29, 2005
Adult-oriented video games prosperingSeptember 30, 2005
Senators seek Web porn taxAugust 1, 2005
Congress threatens P2P networks on pornJuly 28, 2005
What's behind the video game witch hunt?June 13, 2005
More states target violent gamesMarch 4, 2005
Senators target video violenceApril 9, 2003
Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Hillary Clinton of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois persuaded a Senate committee to approve a sweeping study of the "impact of electronic media use" to be organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
This "is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said after the vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Lieberman's two Republican co-sponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.
The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman Press Secretary Rob Sawicki said the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
Lieberman boasts on his Web site that he "held the first hearings on the threat posed to children by video game violence" and strong-armed the industry into developing a ratings system under threat of government action. He and Clinton introduced legislation late last year that would ban the sale or rental of any "mature" or "ratings pending" video game to a minor, and Lieberman has singled out Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto for particular criticism.
Law could be radically changed
If the CDC eventually produces a study claiming a link between violent video games and harm to minors, the future of state and federal laws targeting such games could be radically different. So far, those laws have been ruled unconstitutional because judges have not found that kind of link to exist.
"Down the road when--if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this--then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's where there's going to be a problem."
Missouri's St. Louis County had enacted a law prohibiting anyone from selling, renting or making available "graphically violent" video games to minors without a parent's or guardian's consent. But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "before the county may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here, the county must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors."
In 2004, a federal district judge in Washington state tossed out a law penalizing the distribution of games to minors in which harm may come to a "public law enforcement officer." The "state of the research" does not justify the ban, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled.
Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical and socio-behavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet and cell phones would all be fair game.
The bill has won support from such organizations as the National Institute on Media and the Family, the Center for Media and Child Health at Harvard University Medical School and the American Psychological Association. An earlier version was introduced in 2003.
But not all reception has been positive. The advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste deemed Lieberman its "porker of the month" shortly after the measure was first introduced, criticizing him for spending taxpayer money on "redundant studies" already undertaken by groups like the Kaiser Family Foundation and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
It was not immediately clear how much the original bill was amended beyond the funding component, or when it would receive a full Senate vote. A similar bill introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, has not yet been considered by the U.S. House of Representatives.
10 commentsJoin the conversation! Add your comment