Conservative political website defends gaming

True conservatives should want less government interference in things like video games and other media. While moral conservatism does frown on things like gratuitous (sp?) violence and sexuality, no conservative worth his salt should advocate the government forcing entertainment standards on individuals.

Sadly, most politicians, conservative and liberal alike, often get hijacked by SIG's and knee-jerk voters.

BTW, this guy has got to be a gamer. That nerdy face looks like it hasn't seen sun in a months!

"...could conservative politicians take up the (perhaps unpalatable) cause of defending video games?"

Not likely, as long as games like GTA are brought up as examples, it is unlikely that high profile conservative politicians would appeal to a (usually) nonvoting demographic like gamers, when they can get the elderly and church crowd vote by NOT defending video games. However, I am glad that there is a conservative voice for gaming against Hillary's crazy ideas.

I’ve been a gamer for more than 20 years.
I considered myself a Democrat about five years ago. I agreed with them on many issues, so I just naturally gravitated toward the Democratic party. Two years ago, I moved and registered to vote as an Independent. The Democratic party was losing touch with me, a white, middle-class male. Now, I’m seeing myself more and more aligned with the Republicans. The Democrats constantly vilifying an almost-lifelong hobby of mine is only part of it, but it really isn’t helping matters. If Conservatives are going to stand up and say that video games aren’t the problem, I will be more than glad to stand with them.
Not that I’ll always agree with the party I align myself with, but for the important issues to me, even something as seemingly insignificant as video games, this issue could easily tip the scales for me.

Although I normally vote democratic, they have been really, really stupid when it comes to censorship and video games.

On the other hand, conservatives seem to not really care about the environment.

It’s like they’re making me choose between Halo and trees :(

How do they figure that it's morally conservative to vilify games? That's asinine.

Ahh.. that's why I'm conservative. We're all about less government intervention, with more emphasis on parental and personal responsibility.

Hillary and Co. just want to control everything. Liberals think that they know what's best for you and your family. Communists also think the same way. Scary stuff. Just look at all the wackos that work in government jobs!

I don't really understand why this medium *isn't* controlled like the movie industry. Are the detractors afraid this would be a blow towards controlling games as an art form? Or is this just some underlying Agenda for a video games watch dog group that wants to make sure sales aren't hurt by blocking potential customers from getting a product?

I don't think the 'you're limiting our rights to entertainment' defense is valid. Aren't adult movies still made? I saw more extreme violence in the movie Hostile than I'd care to admit. I actually had to remove my girlfriend from the theatre because she was so moritifed (much to my laughter).

The bottom line is, I don't think this law would have changed anything, except for enforcing the ratings that are supposively there to be enforced anyways.

"It’s like they’re making me choose between Halo and trees"

I'm pretty sure there were some trees in Halo.

Problem solved =]

This guy makes some very good points. Points I've been trying to illustrate to people lately.

Libertarians are hardly right wingers but conservative in the traditional sense that they feel government's role in our personal lives should be as limited as possible. I would be a Libertarian if the libertarian politicians in my neck of the woods (NYC) weren't as retarded as the electable politicians. Unfortunately they're slightly worse.
Well... I sure as hell aint voting for Hillary or whoever her republican opponent will be, but maybe I'll flick the Libertarian switch if the guy isn't a total moron.

Funkonaut, you're deluding yourself if you really believe that.

I don't understand the Democratic position on censorship -- I have a feeling it's a political ploy by people like Hillary that is an attempt to bridge the conservative/liberal gap.

But either way you look at it, the conservatives in this country have begun to go against their founding ways by legislating what you can and cannot do in your own bedroom. They are the ones who are interested in legislating morality and clamping down on personal liberties; there is no question about that.

I wish people would stop focusing on or buying into the whole liberal/convervative team mentality and just start voting for the guy with some/more intelligence. This guy actually uses his brain rather than pandering to good-feeling, meaningless sound bites and bullet points...bravo to that!

Liberals believe in a right to free speech, unless it might offend someone.

Conservatives believe in free speech, as long as it is done in the "free speech zone".

Libertarians are really the only faction that believes in total free speech.

The way how Joystiq ends its story, I wonder if they are just trying to provoke the comments. I now realize we, the commentators, are the real content of blogs such as these.

If video games can be taxed more, any politician, conservative or liberal, will do it. While Senator Lieberman, former Democrat Vice President Candidate, did get the ball rolling on 'violence and video games', there are equally dumb Republican poilticians such as the defunct governor candidate in Texas who wants to tax 'violent' video games by 100%.

Now that young men are spending most of their time on the Internet and video games instead of TV, we will see politicians start to tax and penalize as they see it as a money pie to steal. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it is still moving, subsidize it. That seems to be the pattern.

I don't think that this is necessarily a conservative or liberal viewpoint that he's expressing. Certainly, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pro-censorship and anti-gaming in several ways. These politicians are simply posturing for votes from idiots... and while I'd prefer that they didn't, unfortunately that's politics these days. Luckily, this is really such a non-issue that for the most part it's not going to affect my vote... Seriously, how bad do you think the legislation would get? Do you seriously think that congress will ban certain kinds of games? The most serious legislation that would get through would be some kind of ban on selling certain games to children... Do you really care that much about that?

Really, this is all just political fluff... totally unimportant and something many politicians are doing to try and look more pro-family or conservative/liberal or whatever... Maybe it's disgusting, but it's somewhat effective at gathering votes, and as long as politicians are where I'm at on the real important stuff, I'll be voting for them.

Honestly

I think it's less of a question of either political party championing "the cause of videogames" so much as a case of follow the money.

Historically the conservative side of politics in America (and in Australia where I live) will run on a platform of personal freechoice on issues that don't go too close to their conservative "roots". In other words - if if they don't think it will affect their core mainstream vote and then there's also a money involved then it's okay to be seen as liberal on that issue.

When the video games industry makes more money than Hollywood annually then you start to see that there is very serious money spent on video games and that's why a conservative would (unexpectedly) support it.

Of course the arguement is common sense as well, theres a lot of statistical evidence to suggest that video games have a positive influence on society than other recreation persuits, much more so than say for example, drinking.

As always I think a responsible approach to video games is the key, making parents responsible for the games that their children play, and spending enough time with them to see that they're either developing as young adults or that somethings not quite right with them. The responsibility for the media consumed by children lies squarely with the gate-keepers of that household. They should have the money and they should also set the standards for the kind of video games and time spent on those video games in that house.

Uglypimp the Michigan game law's aim was to make selling games illegal. The movie rating system is voluntary and it is not illegal to sell a rated r movie to a minor, it is just frowned upon. The problem is when you go about giving a group of people the ability to rate these games and movies. Who is to say that we have the same governing morality?
Take for instance the contraversy about GTA. Why is it that no one screams about the violence in call of duty, america's army or full spectrum warrior? No bans on splinter cell, black hawk down or rainbow six?
Why should I let a group of people decide what the game is rated? Are they going to be hidden members like the mpaa? What are thier ages, races, religious perspectives and cultures?
The sad fact of that law is that it won't force any parent to be more responsible. They hear a request from a kid and go out and buy it for them. The games already have ratings on them that seeem to be ignored.
What I can only see happening from more people complaing about violence in games is that the parents who were not really paying attention anyways decide not to buy certain games based on thier ratings..... while violence amoung youths remain unchanged.

The limiting two party system has got to go. I am conservative for the reason of its core beliefs of less government intervention, but our conservative government right now is not living up to that. I hate what the liberals bring to the table at this time as well. Its hard to find a good middle ground among politics. For this reason I hate politicians. Anyway, the point to make is that our government should not be telling us what we should and shouldn't do when it involves free speech. They take too many liberties to put stringent rules on what we can and cannot do. Its only getting worse.

Lets get this in proper perspective here guys. He's a "former fellow" of some think tanks. "Former". Not a senator or congressman etc. Think Tanks write some of the dandiest if not controversial things sometimes so i really don't think we need to put much weight on what this guys says as far as it concerns politics.

He would probably sing a very different tune if he was in office and trying to get reelected in a very conservative district/state.

"Ahh.. that's why I'm conservative. We're all about less government intervention, with more emphasis on parental and personal responsibility.

Hillary and Co. just want to control everything."

You do realize that many of the people pushing for this type of legislation are conservative Republicans right? Jack Thompson is just one of many self-declared "Christian Conservative Republicans" pushing for videogame legislation.

A significant number of people in both parties have supported this nonsense. It is not a Democratic-only thing, and opinions suggesting otherwise are flat out ignorant IMO and just bi-partison bickering.

Uglypimp: Your argument is completely invalidated by one simple fact that you, and many people miss.

There is no government regulation of violent movies, or any other form of violent media of any kind in the united states. Contrary to popular believe, nudity, in and of itself is also unregulated. The only exception to the First Amendment that the courts have allowed is to works "that are patently offensive, and can be considered to have no artistic value". In other words, hard core sexually explicit pornography.

Once again, let me make this perfectly clear, Violent media, i.e movies like Hostel, are 100% unregulated in the united states, as they are protected by the 1st Amendment, that is why you see all of these violent video game laws getting overturned by the courts, it's hypocritical to regulate the sale of violent video games, while ignoring the sale of violent R, or "unrated" DVD movies.

I hope this clears things up, so that the next time someone on Joystiq says "if they can regulate violent R rated movies, then why can't they regulate video games as well, it seems fair to me", I don't have to repeat what I just said, and completely invalidate their argument by pointing out(for the 200th time) that they do not/can not regulate the sale of violent movies, or other media in general.

Conservativism is not about less government. They are about less government spending. Conservatives don't mind large government when it involves regulating behaviors.

Libertarians are more of your classic liberals, not the new ones these days making everyone look bad. The concept behind libertarianism is a pure Constitutional look on running the nation. Each of the two main political parties have violated segments in the Constitution, the left's desire to build massive social programs even though the Constitution forbids government spending that does not go to the full benefit of the nation (social spending only benefits a small percentage of people) and their full on assault on the 2nd Amendment as well as constant violations of Article III with the recent rash of Judicial activism.

The right wants to limit the 1st Amendment and constantly spits all over the 5th with laws like the Patriot Act.

I'm classified as a libertarian. What we tend to want is to go back to the foundations of what the United States was built on. Personal responsibility, full control of individual destiny, and above all, the requirement that government stay small and out of the public eye.

A good government is one that can vanish for a long stretch of time and no one will notice. If ours goes away, it will be fairly obvious. Thus, bad government.

This stance is not surprising of my group. Government wants to limit video games, both left and right, and us libertarians say "government needs to stay the hell out."

"With gaming looking to be a focal point of the upcoming US elections"

I am a gamer and this is definitly a topic of interest to me however I think the author here is fooling himself if he thinks this is a focal point of the upcoming election. Although it is of some interest to most parents and to gamers, I can't imagine it will sway how most people vote. The majority of people voting have much bigger issues they will be concerned with then whether video games are regulated or not.

You know what the funny thing is about the issue of video game censorship is? It isn't a traditional Democrat/Republican issue.

I mean, for every Hillary Clinton on the Democrats' side, there's a Rick Boucher. For every Jack Thompson amongst the Republicans, there's an Adam Thierer.

To put it simply: you can use standard conservative or liberal arguments for either side of the issue. So keep this in mind - you have just as many damned Democrats to blame for this type of legislation as damned Republicans. And the Dems and the GOP is just as likely to be on the side of gamers.

All the same, I applaud articles like this. The simple fact is, it goes to show that there are both liberal and conservative arguments in favor of video gaming. Instead of using this as a knee-jerk, cheap excuse to cut into the political party you don't like (when the political party you do like is just as guilty of causing grief for gamers), focus on the actual goal: getting video gaming wider acceptance and understanding.

Its pretty sweet to see people take an interest in libertarianism. For far too long we have been the pariahs of American politics. Laughingtarget has a decent characterization of our politics, but if you want more info on modern libertarianism check out www.lewrockwell.com or www.vonmises.org.

Enough politics, though. What really interests me about this item is this little snippet:
"Indeed almost every important social indicator has been improving in recent years even as video-game use among youths has increased ... Aggregate violent crime by juveniles fell 43 percent between 1995 and 2004."

Indeed, this is true. What is unsaid, however, is that the rate of sexual activity among young teens has been steadily increasing. Statistics show that the age at which people first experince sexual contact is going down. This is interesting, considering that pornography is so highly regulated in this country. In fact, that Michigan law that was invalidated also contained a provision that made it ilegal to sell games with sexual content to minors. That provision was not even challenged in court, because there is no way that they would have won. Obscenity is one of original exceptions to free speech, but it has never been expanded beyond sexual content. It is a weird culture we live in where pissing on the immolated corpse of a schoolgirl is considered less obscene in the eyes of the law than consensual sex acts. Food for thought, all.

"While ambitious, liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton take the morally conservative route of vilifying video games, conservative politicians have usually been right there behind them"

Actually, this isn't quite true, as it is only a particular segment of the conservative side that is doing so. The grand majority of the republican party has no problem with them and actively champions parental responsibility...this is also why 'ol Jack Thompson is actually out in the cold from the republican party.

> keeping the politicians out of it and letting parents do the footwork?

These kinds of statements show how some people are just misinformed as to what the argument is?

Why is the author of this posting living in the 1940's, where parents were the ones who bought their little children everything?

I see kids 13, 14, 15 -- all the time hanging out in the game shops. How do the parents keep their kids from buying certain games they don't approve of?

You need help is what. That's all these laws are. Geeesh.

@ZaBlanc

The involved parent is the one that doesn't give their kid 60 bucks and tell them to run along. The involved parent is also the one who sees that their kids like games so they take some time every day and play games with their kids. The involved parent is not the one who abrogates their responsibilities to the state

"the left's desire to build massive social programs even though the Constitution forbids government spending that does not go to the full benefit of the nation (social spending only benefits a small percentage of people)"

and this is why, although i sympathize with libertarianism in many respects, I still call bullshit.

schools, urban renewal, anti-tobbacco, heavy-arms gun control and the like may only DIRECTLY effect a small percentage of the population, but their after effects resonate greatly on the safety, health and overall stability of the nation at large. some of this social spending is porky pet projects, but that exists on both side of the field.

the problem for me with libertarianism is that it often ends up being quite selfish in practice.

what's good for the goose is often good for the gander. out of touch with the modern world policies like the current game practices are not.

What does this guy know???? he looks like he never play these things in his life...some suit who has no business talking if he has no experience to do so..just because he is some guy who has some stupid business management or similar degree he has a right to bark about stuff he does'nt know about.

This isn't a red state/blue state issue and any effort to cram it into that particular container only obfuscates things. This is purely an "it will result in votes" issue. Let's be honest, the hardcore gamer demographic of 18-35 year-olds has never been known as a particularly aggressive or prolific voter bloc. The blue-hairs and other AARP members who consistently hit the polls in droves are easily swayed by politicians' promises to regulate the things old people perceive to be scary or morally repugnant and gaming just so happens to fill both bills quite nicely.

Wow. You would switch political parties because of video games? No wonder we're engulfed in a terrible war with no end in site. When it was time to vote responsibly, you were too busy being all survival-of-the-fittest in Halo and you thought that somehow applied to real life.

Jeez louise.

And Hillary Clinton said one stupid thing about video games because she feels the need to say at least one stupid thing about everything. Seems to me like Joe Lieberman would be a MUCH better target for this "angry politician" criticism, and that guy stopped being a true Democrat ages ago.

Kids dont get messed up from violent games. Kids get messed up from absent parents who dont spend time with there kids much less know what types of games are being played. The argument is stupid both ways. Neither ESRB nor gov regulators of games will have the ability to stop bad parents.

Well I mean so many politicians' ideas run hand-in-hand with the Cato Institute.

Or not....

Hillary is simply trying to appear more conservative in preparation for her 2008 Presidential bid. She's been swaying more to the middle ever since she saw the results of the 2004 election. Hillary is trying to distance herself from the 'extreme Liberals' that are currently running the Democratic Party.

The problem with both parties right now is that extremists are in charge of both the right and the left. By appearing to be more of a centrist, she's positioning herself to appeal to her existing constituants while at the same time looking more attractive to conservatives.

It's all political brainwashing, as she really doesn't hold Conservative values to heart. It's just a ploy to win votes.

By speaking up against violent games, she's going to appeal to (moral) conservatives and most of her current flock. She's not worried about alienating gamers, because let's be honest, what percentage of gamers actually go out and vote?

anyone who fancies themselves consevative either isnt paying enough attention or failed to take the right classes in college.

...or didnt get laid in high school

I am not sure that very many of these "arguements" are coming from people who actually play these games and see how the majority of the gamer population reacts to "violent" video games. I dont agree with games that reward horrible crimes such as the GTA series but how many of the politicians think actually know what they are talking about and are not influenced by all the bad things that video games are blamed for.

The media only cover the extreme horrible parts of our society so thats all they see. there are always extremists to all forms of violence. the trigger is not to blame, the thing to blame is the one who built the gun (srry for the bad example thing, i dont have much time)


Btw i am not in that 18-34 gamer population, i am a little younger and still think all these "anti violence" in games is a little whack. and before u judge me now, let me tell you i have done my homework on this subject quite a bit.