Perspective: What's behind the video game witch hunt?

Self-appointed morality mavens are mounting a concerted, state-by-state campaign targeting politically incorrect video games.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, is expected to sign a bill this month that will make his state the only one in the republic to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.

"I commend the Illinois General Assembly for recognizing the importance and necessity of this bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to sign it into law," Blagojevich said in a press release. A suitably outraged Blagojevich spokeswoman went so far as to label games like "Grand Theft Auto" as "practically pornography."

Illinois is hardly alone. California's Assembly has shelved a similar bill for now, though supporters of the scheme are still contemplating a last-minute push in the state Senate. And a North Carolina bill would ban computer games (think Solitaire) from government-owned PCs.

America's anti-video game forces may be prejudiced, but they're not dumb.

"In most cases these bills have been introduced by Democrats," Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, told me on Friday. "They've come from people who have aspirations for national office. They come from people who are interpreting the 2004 election as a values election and the Democrats lost on values. One way to recapture values is to attack violent entertainment, especially video games. It's a cold, calculating political effort."

So far, courts have shot down the most intrusive of these misbegotten laws.

Probably the most influential opinion was written by libertarian-leaning judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which zapped an Indianapolis law restricting minors' access to arcade games that might appeal to a "morbid" interest in violence.

"The common sense reaction to the Indianapolis ordinance could be overcome by social scientific evidence, but has not been," Posner wrote in 2001. "The ordinance curtails freedom of expression significantly and, on this record, without any offsetting justification."

Since then, two other courts have struck down related anti-gaming laws by adopting similar logic: Unless social science research can prove the games are actually harmful, the First Amendment's freedom of expression wins.

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 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."

Last year, 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.

Even beyond the legal concerns, the problems with regulations of video games are obvious and manifold. Raising a child must remain a parent's responsibility, not that of some government bureaucrat. Shielding a 6-year-old from violence is one thing, but shielding a 16-year-old (who can vote in two years) is quite another. Besides, how will prohibitions on availability to minors apply to open-source software on Web sites?

The counterattack
America's anti-video game forces may be prejudiced, but they're not dumb. They've learned their lessons from the courts--and are now scouring the ranks of social science researchers to find some study they can wield to justify restrictions.

Blagojevich, the Illinois Democrat, claims that more recent social science research will let the state defend its restrictions in court. His Web site points to a recent study conducted by an Iowa State University psychologist. It argues that "exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behavior."

Even beyond the legal concerns, the problems with regulations of video games are obvious and manifold.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, that weathervane of modern Democratic Party politics, complained about video games in March: "Probably one of the biggest complaints I've heard is about some of the video games, particularly 'Grand Theft Auto,' which has so many demeaning messages about women and so encourages violent imagination and activities and it scares parents."

Clinton may be a relatively new senator, but she has mastered an important Washington lesson: You get what you pay for. Social science researchers receiving fat paychecks from politicos with agendas have a strong incentive to shape their results accordingly.

It's no surprise, then, that Clinton and other like-minded senators (Democrat Joe Lieberman, Republican Rick Santorum) are behind a bill to spend $90 million in tax dollars on a study looking at the "impact" of video games and other "electronic media" on minors.

Clinton is savvy enough not to call for outright video game regulation at the moment. But after a horrific tragedy happens--perhaps another Columbine--that can be linked to video games, she and her allies can convene a triumphal press conference, demand Draconian restrictions, and seem unusually farsighted.

If the junior senator from New York is especially lucky, that'll be just in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

Censorship

This, unfortunately, is nothing new and will continue to be an ongoing battle that the censors seem to be winning.
I believe part of the problem lies with corporations and government not upholding the highest ideals that this country was founded on, one of the highest being free speech and the other privacy. I don't think it is too difficult to see that over the past 100 years these freedoms have dwindled due to the sensitivity of others who can't grasp that an attack on another persons freedoms is an attack on their own and slowly erodes the power of the people and gives it to government and corporations.
On the subject of video games, in particular, this comes from parents, in general, who can't accept the fact that with freedom, comes responsibility. And that means that you can't have it all. You either make time to protect and guide your children or choose to live beyond your means with things you don't really need, just want, at the sacrifice of family.
In closing, just an example of a misunderstanding of needs and wants: A big argument is the content of television. Where did people begin thinking that television was a need. If you are really concerned, then get rid of the television and read newspapers, etc. where you have more control over the content of your children's exposure to society.

[rencheple]

Weighing Freedom of Speech Against Our Children?s Mental Health

While I respect Declan McCullagh?s opinion as expressed in this speech, I have to disagree with him on the general content in the strongest possible terms. I don?t believe there will ever be clear-cut, non-bias evidence directly linking [sex and] violence in video games to developmental issues in young adults. Honestly, I feel the problem is more significant than that; the problem is that games like Grand Theft Auto actually make money in the market. That we are a society ? as a whole ? in which participating in such abhorrent behavior, even fictionalized, is considered entertainment?that is equally sad and scary.

The problem with the author?s argument is that the laws restricting sales of these games to minors is not one in which the free speech rights of the children are being impinged.

I believe it is the parents? job to choose what their child is and is not permitted to watch, play or read. Some parents exercise this responsibility with overbearing gusto, some ignore it entirely, but in the end, it is the parents? job. If a parent makes a choice to allow their minor to purchase and play a game which has been rated as having objectionable content, then that is between that parent and that child ? but to require the parent to accompany the child in order to purchase the game is not an unreasonable sacrifice to make in order to restrict the sale of similar games to children who have no parental consent.

These laws are a tool in which parents can depend. I am not so naive as to believe that when my son or daughters are 16 they will not go behind my back to purchase or play or do something of which I disapprove. I am comfortable, though, knowing that the law ? recognizing that minors often make unwise choices and often require the guidance of their guardian ? will assist me by requiring my consent when my son or daughters want to purchase computer games that are rated as containing objectionable material.

I am particularly concerned that the author?s argument could just as easily be applied to ?the other rated media?, movies. Imagine, if you would, your 14 or 15 year-old son having open access to movies rated ?R?, ?NC-17? or ?X?. What boy with raging hormones would not be temped by unrestricted, unaudited access to such tempting material?

Society not only has the right to restrict access of minors to commonly deemed ?objectionable? material ? it has the responsibility to do so. Failure to fulfill that responsibility risks impact that we are not likely to understand for decades to come. Are we willing to wait that long to determine that our sons and daughters enjoying a fantasy in which they have sex with a hooker in the back of their stolen car after beating a police officer to death with a baseball bat is bad for our children?

I am not.

[Buzz_Friendly]

rubbish!

Are you going to have your local high school ban books where violence or sexual content may exist. Then where to next the public library? You know many religions bibles contain stories of violence, war and sexuality are we going to ban those as well?
Allow me to suggest some nice Taliban camps in Afghanistan. You should be able to shield yourself from the facts of life there without any problem. No TV, video games nasty books etc to poison your mind or enlighten it. Geez I can't believe there such stupidity that exist in this country. It sickens me!

[Reflautas]

Open access is good

Since the day they were born, I have given both of my children
free access to any movie they wished to see. That is, I
authorized the video stroe to let them rent anything, and was
prepared to sue any theater that, under color of law, denied
access. Nevertheless, that freedom came with a price: I asked
that they excercise their own judgment based on the values I
had tried to teach them. they are noth adults now, and
wonderful examples of the very kinds of citizens most likely to
help usher in world peace. They are more appalled by the
violence of the Bush Administration and his legislative
supporters than anything in a movie or a video game.

[Buzz_Friendly]

Here is what I don't get

Currently you would need an adult to buy you one of these games so a change in law doesn?t change this. So what we have is a waste of time of elected officials. You have to be an adult to smoke or drink in the US. Yet we seem to have quite a few teenage smokers and drinkers. Just what is it that they hope to accomplish? What this does is provide the moral majority some sort of sense that little Timmy or Suzie won?t be seeing any of the path to hell video games. It won?t work?.period. It didn?t work for booze or cigarettes or god forbid a marijane cigarette. I guess what these folks will do now is turn there attention to books in libraries that may contain violence or adult subject matter. So lets all look for book burning next year. I love my country but I am really starting to hate my government and many of its citizens now. Canada is starting to look like the best place to live in Northern America.

Violent Games

I would like to know where are the parents of these children. If it is not suitable for the young kids, why do the parents let them have them? It is time for the parents to start doing their job and accept the responsibility they committed to when they had children.

[Collants]

This is not prejudice.

The precoceived idea that violent video games should not be in the hands of children is not unreasonnable. It is not irrational either. Banning such games from children causes no detriment to society and our economy. Those who have enough talent to create such software will find other opportunities most easily.

The parents do hold responsibility in this area but government oversight would help. Just because it is the responsibility of parents to say...warn their children of the dangers of road traffic, doesn't mean road signs, and traffic police aren't necessary anymore.

I applaud the will to protect youngsters from this filth. In our quest for protecting our freedoms, we seem to forget that rights and freedoms are meant to elevate us, not assault the minds of our youth.

[Fray9]

Hmm..

"and so a child, having been shielded throughout his youth, doth hast grown to be a man in age but not mind. Thusly left ill-prepared for the reality of his life, he hastily doth forfeit it through the ill-informed nature of his actions" - Unknown author

Simply Amazing

The video game industry, unlike the music industry, has already
voluntarily taken up a video game rating system in order to
protect children, yet everyone screams for more regulation. What
would the American government and public have this industry
do? Should they sell games with more mature themes behind the
counter of a gas station, complete with black bag to cover the
title?

The bottom line is the rating system already requires that a
game not be sold to someone who doesn't fit the defined criteria
($50 dollars in hand or not, little Timmy isn't going to be able to
walk into a gaming store and buy Grand Theft Auto by himself)
and the further dramatic claims that video games hurt children
in any way have no backing. For over twenty years social science
has failed to even show a correlation between video games and
violence, let alone a causal realtionship.

No one ever mentions the studies that have shown how video
games have bettered children. Few mention the results that
show that children who play video games tend to show greater
reflexes, computing skills, and (surprise!) altruistic tendencies.
Who would have imagined playing a hero would make you want
to act like one? Video games are only good for instilling the
desire to snort cocaine and shoot the police, right?

Yes, games of a more mature nature need to be kept out of the
hands of children, no doubt. I ask again though, what would the
goverment/public have this industry do? Produce Mario games
until the end of time and snub their largest target audience
(Adult males)? Black bag all games that might be harmful for a
child?

Parents must step up and be parents. The warnings are already
out there. The red ligths that the previous gentleman refered to
are already in place. The question is, who is going to police the
crummy parent who goes and buys the game and hands it over
to Timmy? That is the crime, not the game, which is clearly
labeled. No one blamed the gun companies after various school
shootings, Doom was mentioned a few times though.

If this nation would spend half as much time researching and
enforcing parenting as it has to beating up video games, which
often pale in comparison to anything most parents let their
children watch on MTV (for that matter, anything on cable TV),
then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.

As it is, I guess it's better to try and regulate games that little
Timmy can't buy anyways than to try and address the sweeping
moral decline in the home.

It's more comfortable to point the finger at Grand Theft Auto
than ourselves.

[JLBer]

What an asinine statement

Funny. I thought that it was the *parent's* responsibility to know what's going on in their childrens' lives.

Your statement is nothing more than saying, "Yay, bid government! I want to to step in where the parent stepped out!"

Instead what you should be saying is "Hey, you idiot parent! Get involved with your children! KNOW what they're doing! Educate yourself about computers so that your kids can't one-up you! Don't let them have their own computer in their own room! Be the responsible parent that you're supposed to be!"

Obviously you'd rather let the government attempt to prove once again that the populous is too stupid for their own good, so the government needs to protect us from ourselves. Thank you for your concern, but my right as a parent should supercede your right to tell me how to parent.

Same Folks

You're delusional if you think this is a new effort from the Democrats to right the 2004 elections... they think they won!
Actually, if you'll take a trip down memory lane you'll find that everyone's buddy Tipper Gore was the queen of the Parental Music Resource Council (or something like that) in the 80's. The mostly Democratic group had the music industry put warning labels on records and tapes. A lot of folks still call them "Tipper Stickers."

Anyway, censorship is the flag of liberals... most liberals would argue that until they want someon who disagrees with them to shut-up.

Did you see Republicans lined up to ban Michael Moore?
Think about it and put some facts together folks.

[fredmenace]

Idiotic, uninformed prejudice

The problem with all this is that there is precious little viable research showing any real harm from even the worst video games, but on the other hand there is pretty significant research that even the "worst" of them, like Grand Theft Auto, actually makes kids significantly smarter (better at problem solving, weighing alternatives, etc.) and more aware of their environment. See the latest Discover Magazine, for instance.

Pretty much none of the people fighting against these games has ever actually bothered to sit down and play any of them for more than a few minutes, if at all, so they have no idea what the games are really like.

At this point, it is entirely, 100%, primitive knee-jerk reactions against something people don't understand.

Now I could agree that some games may have notably anti-social and counter-productive themes (possibly including GTA, but I can't really say, as I've never actually played it), but still, even these are not generally reasons to, as a society, keep them away from people, even children. Just because a view is unpopular (such as that cops are not necessarily good) should not necessarily make it illegal. Parents should be monitoring this, but the same is true of books, movies, music videos, and other content with similar themes.

[rencheple]

Prejudice, but neither Idiotic nor Uninformed

Some things I'd like to clarify:

The beneficial aspects of video games, if I understand the research correctly (I will check out the latest Discover) are based on the propensity of video games to place the player in situations in which hand-eye coordination and problem solving skills are challenged. The nature of the problem solving test is that good solutions are rewarded (the player moves on to the next task, perhaps after a reward) and the bad solutions are discouraged (the task is not completed). What then do we say about a game that teaches problem solving skills with such viable solutions as "steal it" or "kill it"? May God help those children who learn problem solving from games such as GTA.

I am a computer gamer, and have been clearly labeled a "hard-core" gamer in the past. Not only have I sat and played Duke Nukem, Doom (multiple versions), Unreal, Castle Wolfenstien (the new and the old), but I also have participated in the alpha and beta testing of a vast majority of the MMPORPG games on and off the market. A short list is: Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call 2, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Motor City Online, and Earth and Beyond (and many more still). I have not played GTA, though I have watched my nephew play and discussed it with him in detail. My reaction is not a reflex against something that I do not understand - I would argue that I understand it better than many.

Again, I am not suggesting that such games be outlawed, but I am suggesting that the rating system be enforced. An earlier poster claimed that little Timmy could not buy it if he wanted to, which is how it?s supposed to work. Unfortunately, the majority of stores do not enforce the age limits on their media.

[Reflautas]

It's not the harm, stupid!

Your story reports that the judicial logic: "Unless social science
research can prove the games are actually harmful, the First
Amendment's freedom of expression wins." This is a dangerous
slippery slope, to be avoided and not emulated. First, there is
no minimum age for First Amendment protection. They are
being denied equal protection of the law. Second, these laws are
being modelled after "obscenity for minors" (a.k.a. "harmful to
minors") laws that simply use a minor-centric ruler for
measuring garden-variety obscenity. But the legal theory
allowing censorship of the obscene was never based on any
showing of "harm." The Supreme Court (back then) was too
smart for that. It knew what lawmakers and modern jurists
ignore: If we allow censorship on the basis of "harm" to a class
of people, we might as well chuck the First Amendment.
Individually, the speech of (1) white supremacists, (2)
republicans, (3) Fox "News" has and, yes, even (4) democrats has
caused far more harm than the collective speech of every video
game ever sold. As nice as it might be to prohibit parents from
teaching racism to their kids, as healthy as it would be for Fox to
go dark and silent, as life-giving as it would be for warmongers
in Congress to stop advocating violence as the global solution to
everything, so long as our First Amendment protects their
speech it must, if we are to remain free, protect the freedom of a
kid to point a finger or a stick and holler "Bang! Bang! You're
Dead!"

My father did not allow me to play cops and robbers, cowboys
and indians, soldiers, or any other of those games where we
pretended to shoot one another. I did anyway, free from
government interference but captive to the awareness of my
father's disapproval. (He encouraged us to pretent we were
hunting a bear!) I don't think my father, a WWII-generation
adult, could ever understand why his two sons became pacifists.
It was his values, not the games we played, that influenced us.
Kids prohibited from playing violent games by the same
members of Congress who have approved Bush's killing spree
resulting in thousands of deaths are not likely to learn any
valuable lesson.

kids will still get the game(s)

Where do you think kids will turn if they can't legally buy the game from the local retailer? They will just turn to the internet and illegally download it, thus bypassing any "rules" saying they can't get the game because they are too young. These kinds of proposed laws will not do anything to keep games out of childrens/teens hands. It will just keep them from acquiring the game legally. (and promote piracy at the same time)

[rimgrund]

Come ON!

There is not a single law on the books of any city/county/state/province/country that isn't violated from time to time, from not mowing the lawn up to murder. We can debate the value or utility of any proposed law, but the fact that it will be disobeyed has got to be the worst argument against it.

Parents Responsibility?

I am a 23 year old that grew up playing video games. I had Mortal Kombat when it first hit the shelves for the Sega Genesis. Over the years, i've indulged myself in many other violent games such as the famously noted GTA series. I spent alot of money upgrading my computer to be able to handle Doom3 and Half Life 2. Please bear in mind, I was pre-teen/teen growing up with Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem 3d, to name a few. Today, I have a good job in sales, a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice, and have never paid a prostitute and then beat her to get my money back (always a great example the people trying to censor games refer to from GTA). How in the world could this happen, how could I be exposed to such violence, blood, sex, and bad language and be sucessful? The following sentence is the answer to this entire debate. MY PARENTS RAISED ME CORRECTLY. They taught me right from wrong. They taught me responsibility. Most importantly, they gave me the free will to choose my own path. Legislation will not solve anything, good parenting will.

[JLBer]

Good for you!

You and I are the same way, and I've been playing violent video games 10 years longer than you were!

But we're in 21st century America now. When kids to bad things it's always someone else's fault - never the parents' fault - and there is NEVER the possibility that the kids might just be psychologically imbalanced. You obviously don't watch enough TV or else you'd know that.

{/SARCASM}

Well said...

I am much like you. Same age range, same upbringing, same stable, decent money making job. And you are right, it all coems down to parenting, upbringing, and teaching. Not sheltering, avoiding, and blinding. A Realist after my own heart.

[SteveBarry687]

People forget that "Parent" is a verb, not a noun.

Too many of today's "parents think that dropping a child out of their uterus makes them a parent. That is just not the case. It takes a lot of work. Parenting is something you have to do 24/7.

Heck, I even parent my new little brothers, from my dad's new wife. If there is a game that I know will not be good for them to play, I call my dad up and let him know "If the kids ask you to buy X game, don't get it. The game has X feature that shows X." It really is as simple as that.

The biggest problem with the "adults" of today is that they are too busy trying be "better than the Jones." To self involved to be a part of their kids lives.

Being a parent doesn't mean driving little Jimmy to soccer practice, it means taking an active role in their lives.

Wake up America. Stop letting the government tell you what is good and bad. They have no clue. Most of them are corrupt as hell.

I gain access to their minds thru video games - bwa ha ha ha

Sorry, but the data IS in. We have decades of reliable research proving that role playing, both the 'good' roles and the 'bad' roles, is not only healthy, but essential for children's development. The idea that kids are less able to distinguish between video games and reality than they are able to distinguish between playing cops & robbers and reality is baseless and absurd. Do kids still play cops & robbers? Cops & gangstas? Pimps & hos?

Equally baseless is the idea that the repetitive violence in the games is going to teach them that violence is ok. Again, children do not get their ideas from the games, the games are the safe place they come to test the ideas they get from society. When little Johnnie gets upset about a news report on dead Iraqis and dad says don't worry, son, they're just a bunch of rag-heads, that teaches him that violence is ok. When he hears dad & his friends talking about going downtown to mess up some queers, that teaches him that violence is ok. When dad gives mom a black eye and she 'behaves better', that teaches him that violence is ok. When dad beats him every time he does something wrong, that teaches him that violence is ok. When he shoots the two hos, then the pimp, then sticks a knife in the driver's neck and advances to level three, he learns that in order to advance to L3 you have to kill those characters in that order. Might as well be push yellow twice, then blue, then green. The violence is secondary, gives the game a little more action. The goal is to advance to L3.