Leland Yee @ GDC: a missed opportunity
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Mar 26th 2006 at 11:00PM }
We attended the GDC panel entitled "Murder, Sex and Censorship: Debating the Morals of Creative Freedom." The panel was notable for the presence of Leland Yee (pictured above), Democratic candidate for California State Senate, and notable anti-game crusader who passed a law that makes it a crime to sell to minors any game in which a player kills, maims, dismembers or sexually assaults an image of a human being.
Yee's fellow panelists included Brenda Brathwaite, Jason Della Rocca, and James Paul Gee. For the most part, though, the audience had assembled to hear Yee defend his position on games.
I'll cut through the niceties and get to the meat of it: this panel was a missed opportunity. Jason Della Rocca, who should have been able to ask Yee some good questions, behaved petulantly and unprofessionally (at one point, he loudly sighed into his microphone while Yee was making a particularly nutty point). I expected more of the Executive Director of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA). Get him some media and debate training, stat!
This panel should have been constructed as a one-on-one debate between Dr. James Paul Gee and Leland Yee. Gee's calm, logical arguments and professional debate style would have been more effective at eviscerating Leland Yee's ridiculous position on games.
Leland Yee himself isn't all that impressive as a politician. His presence can best be desribed as "small." The table he sat at dwarfed him, his voice didn't carry, and his elocution and diction are sub-par for someone making a career in politics. There was no sense that the man has any stage charisma. If this is the best of the West-coast anti-game politicians, game lobbyists should take heart.
Here are some choice quotes:
- Brenda Brathwaite: "I invited a ton of people to this panel. Yee was the only one out of the entire group who agreed to come." (Loud applause from the audience, who did appreciate that Yee had pretty much stepped into the lions' den in order to defend his position on games.)
- James Paul Gee: "Playing video games in the right context and the right way can be good for you. In the public discussion we spend a tremendous amount of time asking when where and how can they be bad for you, but not asking when where and how they can be good for you. To the public, there's one game: Grand Theft Auto. PS2 had had 6000 games made for it, and yet we hear about one or maybe two games.
- James Paul Gee, quoting a critic of the popular Hardy Boys series of novels written for teenaged boys: "The harm done is simply incalculable. I wish I could label each one of these books explosives, guaranteed to blow your boys' brains out." (Gee's point is that every new form of popular entertainment meets resistance from people who believe it will destroy society.)
- Leland Yee, on his bill banning the sale of "adult" games to minors. The bill is currently being contested in California courts: "It's a very narrowly tailored bill. We believe it will sustain the test of court."
- Jason Della Rocca: "Are these [political] efforts even directed in the right way? It's a way for parents to be less engaged. For [parents] to abdicate the responsibility [of parenting] even further."
- Jason Della Rocca: All of this legislation is "creating a stigma... a stigma to being a game developer. They feel ashamed to be a game developer... They're part of this industry that's been blacklisted by the media and by culture at large. anytime they encounter a family member or journalist or friend they [feel bad]."
- Leland Yee, in answer to an audience member question asking why he believes that the ESRB ratings system isn't sufficient: "GTA was rated as an M-rated game. If I as a parent then purchase this game... and sexually explicit material comes out... that failure shows that the ESRB does not work." (He failed to actually answer the audience member's question as to how any ratings agency could have found the hidden Hot Coffee code.)
- Leland Yee, in answer to James Paul Gee's statement that the evidence that violent games cause children to be aggressive is severely lacking: "There is not solid evidence. There is not cause-and-effect evidence. In a free society you cannot conduct that sort of experiment. There's no evidence that smoking causes cancer. What you have is correlational data. what we do is assume that it's as if you have done a cause-and-effect study."
- Leland Yee, after the audience collectively said, "What?!" to his (actually sound) assertion that there is no evidence that smoking causes cancer: "Jesus! We are now limiting that kids can't have cigarettes because of that [correlational] data."
- Leland Yee, trying to patch things up near the end of the hour, "I am very respectful of what you all do. The technology that you've developed, the content you've put in is extremely important. I don't see you as adversarial."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
wanderer @ Mar 26th 2006 11:39PM
Could someone remind me why it's so insane to say kids can't buy mature rated games? (I do think it's kind of silly how everyone's so afraid of sex, but it's kind of the norm in the US.) It's not like they can't still play them, they just need to have their parents with them when it's bought.
Kids aren't allowed into R rated movies, either. Where's the outrage?
Matt Paprocki @ Mar 26th 2006 11:51PM
Simple.
Movies aren't regulated by the government. Once they step in and regulate games in any form, it's a landmark call and everything from here on out becomes regulated. In other words:
"Why not ban this Shakespeare book? We banned these games from kids hands, and the government stops kids from buying them..."
It only leads to more problems, much larger than the one that would be started with violent games.
GameFam @ Mar 26th 2006 11:55PM
The movie industry uses self-regulation, not law, to prevent kids from getting into R-rated movies. They're not ILLEGAL. Yee and his ilk equate what he calls "ultra-violent" video games (who gets to draw the line, BTW?) with alcohol, tobacco and forearms, substances that have been proven to be harmful - even fatal - to all humans. Games need to be on the same plane as other forms of entertainment - movies, TV, books, etc.
GameFam @ Mar 26th 2006 11:59PM
Um... yeah... I sure meant to write "firearms" and not "forearms". Damn you, qwerty keyboard!
wanderer @ Mar 27th 2006 12:05AM
So why can't kids (or even 20-year-olds) buy alcoholic beverages? Wine has health benefits, and I'm sure you could find studies saying beer does, too, so it's not just that. Why don't we leave it up to parents to oversee that, too?
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here. It's not that I think we need laws saying only adults can buy "mature" games. I think there's more important things to worry about. But I always get the impression from game sites that these "anti-game crusaders" are evil and simply must be stopped without really hearing much of a logical argument about why.
Eric @ Mar 27th 2006 12:09AM
I don't mean to sound like a proponent for this misguided and mindless fear of making our children and ourselves murderers with videogames but...
Whats the big deal about not letting kids buy violent video games again? I guess I just kind of miss how this is a huge deal. At first I didn't like that lawmakers were tying to regulate the sale to children...then it hit me...who gives a feck but the "children"?? Sure as hell not this guy. Its not like there aren't cool/bad parents out there that would buy the video games for them anyway.
I mean, are they trying to regulate how games are made and are they preventing certain content to be in them? In that case I would be furious. But so far the only person trying to do that as well as take video games away for good is Jack Thompson...and he's a nut so his opinion matters to no one anyway.
Doc @ Mar 27th 2006 2:14AM
I'm fairly sure that in my country (australia) the government does regulate the ratings of games and movies (I'll have to check that out actually) and we don't see to be the worse for it.
There probably do need to be some revisions to the ESRB, they need people who have the skills to dig deep into the whole software package for hidden content, even if it isn't unlockable by normal means, not because violence or sex automatically causes bad stuff to happen but because people have a right to know what they are buying, full disclosure and all that.
That said, that sort of thing would require a team to dig through all the assets in a game which would take for farking ever, so it's fairly unlikely. There probably needs to be a bit more onus on the developers to fully account for everything that is in the game.
polly @ Mar 27th 2006 2:41AM
Great, so we criminalize the sale of mature games to minors. What now? We put Joe BestBuy Clerk behind bars for 5 years? What a tard. If only the correlational data between playing video games and violent behavior was as high as that of smoking and cancer, then he might have a point. Politicians go on crusades like this because they think it will win them votes. Tell your friends and family what utter facist nonsense this is. We have bigger problems to address in this country.
Fandel @ Mar 27th 2006 2:55AM
What, did i just read that correctly? Australia regulates games, and gamers in that country are no worse for it? This is the country that just BANNED a game because it had graffiti(MY GOD!!) A country that routinely OUTLAWS games outright,(while letting movies with similar content through) so that if you are caught buying, or even owning games like GTA of Mark Echo, you can be fined or put in jail. This is the reason why I am so against these laws. Once you put Video games in a different category than similar content in movies and other forms of media, they will propose more laws, just look at Australia.
P.S I find it odd that people were so outraged about the hot coffee thing in GTA SA, but at the same time, 13 year old girls are buying the Sex and the City(a TV series that has 10x the amount of sex and nudity than the so called "porn" in GTA SA) DVD box set at best buy, and no one cares. America, the land of hypocrisy in the truest sense of the word.
Marlor @ Mar 27th 2006 3:42AM
"The movie industry uses self-regulation, not law, to prevent kids from getting into R-rated movies. They're not ILLEGAL."
The movie industry actually does a fairly good job on the whole of self-regulation. They do a pretty good job of keeping kids out of movies they shouldn't be seeing.
On the other hand, the games retail industry has done an absolutely terrible job of enforcing ratings. Kids are sold M-rated games all the time.
This debate wouldn't be happening if the games retail industry could actually be trusted to regulate itself.
Fandel @ Mar 27th 2006 4:44AM
"The movie industry actually does a fairly good job on the whole of self-regulation. They do a pretty good job of keeping kids out of movies they shouldn't be seeing."
Take a quick trip to best Buy of any other store, and you would see just how easy it is for people under 18 to buy violent and sexually explicit R rated(or more likely the special edition "NOT RATED") movies. Or, better yet, unrated DVD sets of HBO shows like Sex and the City, and Sopranos.
Your analogy would be more valid if you were to talk about DVD movies rather than Movie theaters.(which by the way, is more easier to get in a R rated movie then you realize) And I can tell you for a fact, it is much more easier to buy a violent and sexually explicit DVD movie than it is to buy a M rated game.
Oh, and by simple fairness and logic, Sex and the City should classified as porn, and therefore, would only be available behind the counter at porno video stores because that show has numerous scenes of graphic sex and nudity. but you know very well that anyone can buy the DVD set at any walmart electronics check out counter without no problems whatsoever.(that includes those that are under-aged as well)
Not to mention that there should also be politicians like Hilliary Clinton proposing bill's to regulate the sale of violent, and sexually explicit DVD movies, but you know that will never happen, because, unlike the video game industry, the movie industry has bought off the Democratic party in support and money, plain and simple.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Mar 27th 2006 8:24AM
The ESRB does just as good of a job as the movie industry does with its ratings. The ratings are not the problem, if there's a problem in the first place.
The failure, if any, is at the retail level. Try and get your 12-year-old sibling into an NC-17 rated movie. It will not happen.
A better comparison would be, just like someone said already, trying to buy NC-17 rated DVDs and M rated games. I'm sure BestBuy will sell the same 12-year-old both of these things.
I think a better way to fight these laws would be to consistently ask the legislators to add the same sanctions to buying NC-17 rated movies. You can bet the MPAA would have a shitfit. And since the movie industry actually knows how to lobby, the legislation would be killed. One hopes.
John @ Mar 28th 2006 10:47AM
I'm more than a little disapointed that no one called Mr. Yee on several of his other past bills (including one that would mandate Feng Shui for all Govt buildings in Calif.), several of his previous quotes on gaming (he has said he has never read any of the hundreds of studies he quotes, he has said he has never played any modern game).
He, and Clinton/Lieberman ($90 million anti-game study), are doing nothing but pandering for low hanging votes and national attention. There are literally thousands of other issues they could address if they really cared about children's health and safety and not simply being reelected. But, if he went after any other issue, he would not be recieving even a fraction of the attention he receives on this issue.
Shame on GDC for inviting him, all it does is give him even more credibility.
Bigman-K @ Mar 28th 2006 11:59AM
Leland Yee is wrong about the link between cigerettes and cancer only being a correlation. There is direct molecular evidence of the causation of cancer by carcinogens found in tobacco. Studies have shown that when human lung tissue is exposed to these carcinogens it causes mutations in the cells of the lung tissue that in turn can develope into cancer. Not only that but lab studies in the 70s and 80s involving labs animals have shown that animals exposed to cigerette smoke had an extremely high chance of getting lung cancer and other health related problems while other animals in the exact same enviroment, who were given the exact same food, and where everything was almost exactly the same BUT they were not exposed to cigerettes smoke, did not.
Not only that but proving a physical harm is incredibly easy since the it's either there or it's not there and were pretty much all the same biologically. On the other hand, proving a psychological harm (such as violent games causing increased aggression or violent behavior) is incredibly hard if not impossible. The reason being that people are so fundamentally psychologically different from one another in how they react to certain things, how they think, how they solve problems, as well as their past histories, how they were raised, what other things they were or weren't expsoed to and how it effects their attitudes/behaviors, ect. There is just so much more to it when it comes to our psychological profiles while physically we are pretty much the same.
fatpixels radio @ Mar 29th 2006 12:18PM
Lots of great debate here. I apologize in advance for the long post:
I don't think the answer is to ignore the enemy camp. I think that having Leland Yee at the GDC is actually a good thing. Even if politicians are not truly interested in honest debate, or in joint efforts to remedy perceived problems, by not talking to them we are effectively dealing ourselves out of the game. This point was raised by Prof. Henry Jenkins concerning a recent dialog he had with Senator Clinton. I think it's just great when people such as him and Prof. James Gee step up to actually defend our interests. Will Wright's introduction to The New World of Games in this month's Wired Magazine is great, as well. We should have more of our better-spoken luminaries step up to publicly defend the industry.
But much of the discussion I follow on the issue of impending state and federal level retail games legislation, I feel, misses the point. Gamers are understandably irate about the fact that so many legislators seem to be unfairly demonizing our beloved pastime. They cite issues of legality, first amendment protections, and media effects. But the real question is one of efficacy in making such legislation unpalatable to politicians.
I'm not sure we can move legislators by engaging them in debate over legality or media effects. Or even in engaging them in a dialog with the game industry or their game playing constituents. The truth is, they simply don't care. They are playing to their base: a much larger bloc of the voting public who simply don't understand the issues. They are also relying on the public perception of games as a medium created for children at best, and as throwaway, gratuitously violent exploitation at worst.
Politicians merely see the games legislation issue as a means to shore up their family values cred without risking voter backlash. And they have plenty of anti-games special interests and moral reformers to back them up. In my opinion, the best way to truly affect change is to hit legislators where it hurts: public image and voter perceptions on the issue. If our elected representatives start to see games legislation either as a dead issue, or better yet, a problematic one, their platform advisors will move off of it onto some other more easily leveraged space where it can look like they are righting a public ill, without having to address any of the very real and very complex underlying problems. Of course, this effort is quite difficult, given that the largest segments of the voting public -- the folks Wil Wright refers to as "elders" in his article in this month's Wired Magazine -- have always been resistant to new forms of media they don't understand. The underlying issue is a generational divide, that I fear no amount of education can remedy.
But we have to try: sticking to two or three talking points, such as "such legislation is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars," or "if you're going to regulate games, you have to regulate DVDs and CDs, too" would help. The latter point is to gain leverage by association with the large and monetized lobbying presence that the music and film industries already have.
On that point, I hope that the big, publicly held publishers might consider putting together some kind of lobbying effort. If all we have is Doug Lowenstein against a bevy of state legislators and Senators Clinton and Lieberman, that's not enough. Not to take away from Mr. Lowenstein's efforts, but it would help immensely if national trade associations and publishers would weigh in with their contributions, both in spirit and in spending, as well.
Also, I think we could do a lot more to improve the PR of the industry: indicate more strongly to the public the lengths that the industry goes to in order to shield underage players from inappropriate content; communicate more accurate demographics of game players and game purchasers; interface more with the local and national press. In short, get some faces and voices out there and use the press to leverage our message in a smart way. For example, if it is a television appearance, keep the points short and simple. If it is an op-ed column, or a radio talk show, then get more of the nuts and bolts out there. Keeping the message targeted toward an intended audience (not gamers) might help, as well. If we get lucky enough to secure an appearance on a daytime talk show, play to parents' anxieties about media effects and violence in games by pointing out that a vast majority of games are not only non-violent, but are educational and artistic. Talking in clear and simple terms about the ESRB ratings system, and focusing on its efficacy would help, too.
The enthusiast press isn't immune, either. I would hope that editors might become more aware that the content in their magazines has an effect on the public perception of the industry. Anti-games special interest groups and politicians will most probably start focusing on game magazines next, to bolster their arguments. Trying to work out some proactive strategies to deal with this eventuality, or at least coming up with some kind of policy statement about appropriateness of content to your readership might help. I realize that the enthusiast press has a responsiblity to sales, advertising dollars, and properly covering the medium. It's tough when so many screenshots focus on gratuitous violent and sexual imagery. It's even tougher when such subject matter is, in reality, what the base readership wants to see. But focusing on your inclusion of content that would play well in the public eye, such as articles on game-based charities, medical and health-based initiatives, and positive cultural or educational contributions, might be helpful. Obviously, covering more of this content might be helpful, too.
This is sometimes a touchy issue. I present this from Jason Freidenfelds, a PR rep for Ziff-Davis: "It's tough for individual game companies or gaming media publishers to speak up, since more often than not we're made to play the straw man in a simplistic and poorly framed debate: "Is videogame violence good or bad for kids?" (Guess which side we get slotted into.) Ziff Davis Game Group used to comment on videogame violence until we got singled out and dragged through the mud one too many times; the last straw was CNBC inviting our editorial director John Davison onto a TV segment about videogames under false pretenses: it was supposedly about the future of gaming and online communities, but in fact, it was Donny Deutsch's show (should have heard warning bells right there) exclusively about videogame violence, complete with a family from Columbine. John walked off the set, and we haven't commented externally on the issue since."
So what are we to do? There are organizations such as the Video Game Voters Network, as well. While the VGVN is a great idea, in order to best make use of the effort, I think it should exercise the voice of its members in the best possible way by picking its battles intelligently, and getting its message out there simply and strongly. If it is merely a means to assail politicians with email petitions, I'm not sure that will provide enough leverage.
Matthew Sakey posits that, "its my hope that the industry uses (the VGVN) as a way to codify the differing views into a single voice. Perhaps not every viewpoint inside the business will be 100% happy with the VGVNs platform, but that single, unified front will present a far more effective shield than the scattershot approach weve taken so far."
Sorry for the long posting, but I feel the issue is important enough to merit the ASCII.