The Political Game: Throwing free speech under the bus
by Dennis McCauley 
{ Mar 30th 2007 at 12:00PM }
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
M-rated games can't ride the bus anymore in Boston or Portland, Oregon. Can't ride the train, either. The respective transit authorities in those towns have banned all future ads encompassing M-rated games.
Of course, the game they were really gunning for -- but missed -- was a Grand Theft Auto title, Vice City Stories. Transit ads promoting GTA:VCS which ran last November set the Boston censor-crats off. But by censoring GTA, critics like the Parents Television Council and the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood have closed the door to advertising for every other M-rated game as well. Victims of the ban will include some very artistic titles like Jade Empire 2 and God of War 2 as well as games like Halo 3 that, while violent, don't include hot button content such as shooting cops or robbing hookers.
Why then are games singled out? Why is it okay for HBO to place a huge advertisement for the final episodes of The Sopranos on buses in Boston and Portland while the M-rated video game based on the hit show would be banned from such advertising?
Games ads very nearly got kicked off the bus in Denver, too. There, a committee of the Regional Transit District (RTD), responding to a request from the local chapter of the Parents Television Council, recommended banning ads for M-rated games system-wide. Fortunately, the organization's board rejected the ban, citing legal concerns.
Now I'm already on record as not being a fan of GTA-style game play. But this new tactic -- and that's exactly what it is -- needs to be addressed by the video game industry, and quickly. Otherwise it will snowball into a national movement. I'm not sure why the ESA sat on its hands during the Boston controversy. There, under political pressure, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority revised its guidelines for accepting ads for video games. As a justification for doing so, the MBTA equated M-rated games with X-rated movies. That's a comparison that is both wrong and one that the industry cannot afford to let stand.
So it was good to see an ESA representative getting involved in the Denver case. It obviously had the desired effect, since the RTD backed off the ban. Having won in Denver, the ESA should immediately file suit against the MBTA to reverse the Boston decision. After all, the transit authority is a quasi-public agency which receives government funding. It has no business being in the censorship business.
The point here is simple. The game industry needs to vigorously defend its creative products. Sure, GTA rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But unpopular speech is always most in need of protection.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
M-rated games can't ride the bus anymore in Boston or Portland, Oregon. Can't ride the train, either. The respective transit authorities in those towns have banned all future ads encompassing M-rated games.Of course, the game they were really gunning for -- but missed -- was a Grand Theft Auto title, Vice City Stories. Transit ads promoting GTA:VCS which ran last November set the Boston censor-crats off. But by censoring GTA, critics like the Parents Television Council and the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood have closed the door to advertising for every other M-rated game as well. Victims of the ban will include some very artistic titles like Jade Empire 2 and God of War 2 as well as games like Halo 3 that, while violent, don't include hot button content such as shooting cops or robbing hookers.
Why then are games singled out? Why is it okay for HBO to place a huge advertisement for the final episodes of The Sopranos on buses in Boston and Portland while the M-rated video game based on the hit show would be banned from such advertising?
Games ads very nearly got kicked off the bus in Denver, too. There, a committee of the Regional Transit District (RTD), responding to a request from the local chapter of the Parents Television Council, recommended banning ads for M-rated games system-wide. Fortunately, the organization's board rejected the ban, citing legal concerns.
Now I'm already on record as not being a fan of GTA-style game play. But this new tactic -- and that's exactly what it is -- needs to be addressed by the video game industry, and quickly. Otherwise it will snowball into a national movement. I'm not sure why the ESA sat on its hands during the Boston controversy. There, under political pressure, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority revised its guidelines for accepting ads for video games. As a justification for doing so, the MBTA equated M-rated games with X-rated movies. That's a comparison that is both wrong and one that the industry cannot afford to let stand.
So it was good to see an ESA representative getting involved in the Denver case. It obviously had the desired effect, since the RTD backed off the ban. Having won in Denver, the ESA should immediately file suit against the MBTA to reverse the Boston decision. After all, the transit authority is a quasi-public agency which receives government funding. It has no business being in the censorship business.
The point here is simple. The game industry needs to vigorously defend its creative products. Sure, GTA rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But unpopular speech is always most in need of protection.
Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JamesLill @ Mar 30th 2007 12:11PM
It's not against free speech if it is on private property. You are free to say what you want while on the train but you aren't allowed to write it on the walls right?
JamesLill @ Mar 30th 2007 12:13PM
Let me modify that a bit. It is not against free speech to refuse someone advertising space. That is why you don't see Girls Gone Wild ads on primetime CBS or NBC.
John @ Mar 30th 2007 12:19PM
I smell lawsuit
Jack of No Trades @ Mar 30th 2007 12:21PM
The people that are against violent video games are the same stupid asses letting their kids watch Saw3.
It doesn't make since to ban one form of violent media (video games) but allow another form that has the same violent content(tv,movies).
Steve @ Mar 30th 2007 12:28PM
>> Why is it okay for HBO to place a huge
>> advertisement for the final episodes of The
>> Sopranos on buses in Boston and Portland while
>> the M-rated video game based on the hit show
>> would be banned from such advertising?
Why? Because for the past few decades the traditional entertainment industry has been a puppet and financial contributor of the National Socialist party (i.e. Democrat Party). The Dims certainly aren't going to punish the film and TV industries when they provide boatloads of cash to the party and use celebrities to indoctrinate gullible individuals into supporting the party's greedy Marxist agenda. Since the new video game industry has tons of cash and hasn't bought or been bought by a single political party then it's open for attack.
BTW, the Free Speech protection under the First Amendment only protects individuals from the Federal Government. The Constitution doesn't prevent the states from legislating against the concept of free speech (So you'd have to check their specific state Constitutions and laws). I prefer to go by what the Constitution says, and not what the Pope...er...I mean Supreme Court decides that it means but many do. For what it's worth, the Supremes seem to apply this amendment to all levels of government.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 30th 2007 12:36PM
You are correct in that free speech cannot be guaranteed on private property, James. However, public transit is owned and operated by governments. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is responsible for the operation of the MBTA. Therefore, this is a First Amendment issue.
I'm glad Denver thought sensibly about the issue... of course, as I'm in Boston, I get to see first-hand the effects of the decision. That the ESA didn't lift a finger is rather chilling. It wouldn't surprise me if that was deliberate, since the ESA and Rockstar don't get along. But if so, the ESA let petty disagreements weaken it and its membership's interests.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 30th 2007 12:41PM
First, let's thank Steve for making sure Godwin's Law still applies on the Internet.
Next, let's point out that Steve apparently stopped reading the Constitution after the first couple of amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that the Constitution and its Amendments applies equally to all levels of government and not just to the federal level. So while you also have to invoke the 14th Amendment when discussing this case, the 1st also applies.
point09micron @ Mar 30th 2007 12:42PM
The Constitution doesn't prevent the states from legislating against the concept of free speech
You basically just said that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rule on state laws, which is not so much an error as pure ignorance.
clo1_2000 @ Mar 30th 2007 12:46PM
Steve,
I've seen plenty of Republicans opposed to violent video games as much as Democrats. In addition, I don't see these same Republicans complaining about violent movies or television either. But criticizing the Republican party only "emboldens the enemy" so I'd better stop.
AirIntake @ Mar 30th 2007 12:52PM
You guys are aware that the people supporting these laws will be dead or powerless in the next 10 years right? NES gamers are growing up, and will be into politics quite soon. They won't be quite as stupid.
evilned @ Mar 30th 2007 12:59PM
To those that say that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to states, it does. Read the 14th amendment, in particular the Due Process clause.
Nick Simpson @ Mar 30th 2007 1:27PM
Let me get this straight... you don't think God Of War 2 has hotbutton content?
JamesLill @ Mar 30th 2007 1:17PM
@32_footsteps.
Good point there, but the thing is that this wasn't someone standing up and advertising. It was a company wanting to buy space on a train. I don't think the government has trouble finding advertising, they just took the easy way out and got something non-threatening.(probably avoiding the lawsuit of some parent whose kid went on a shooting spree saying it was the train that talked him into it)
RyanLN @ Mar 30th 2007 1:10PM
>BTW, the Free Speech protection under the First >Amendment only protects individuals from the Federal >Government.
Well, that's patently false. The 1st Amendment protections are clearly extended to all U.S. citizens through the 14th Amendment to prevent the restriction of speech by State and local governments unless said restrictions are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. [I do admit to paraphrasing; it's been a long time since I took con law as a first year law student.] Be that as it may, it is very safe to say that courts look at speech restrictions with what they call strict scrutiny, and all that means is that if you want to restrict speech, you better have a damn good reason.
I imagine that the reason that Denver backed off is the same reason that Boston would lose in court if challenged: they do not have a damn good reason. They have a feel-good, appealing on its face reason that might get them some press in the squibs in USA Today, but as far as meeting Constitutional muster- nothin'.
The reason why they don't get all up in arms about the Sopranos et al isn't because the Democrats have been purchased on Hollywood's collective American Express Black card; the reason is that people *like* the Sopranos. And when I say "people" I mean "people who matter". People who vote. Legislators. Parents. So-called Christian Conservatives. Our chosen avocation of video games does not have an entrenched place in mainstream society and entertainment as your traditional modes of art, theater, movies, and music. How could it? Those modes have head starts ranging from decades to millenia, while video games have been pushing the envelope for less than 20 years. I suspect that as we grow older, continue to play games, become judges, congressional representatives, senators, governors, and soccer moms who actually have some kind of remote of idea of what they're talking about; we'll see these doomed-to-fate attempts by idiots like our friend Jack wither away and die.
Roger Rees @ Mar 30th 2007 1:18PM
Guys, I've said it before and I will probably say it again. This is not a free speech issue. This is government acting as a private party. A city can choose to restrict who it rents ad space to, just like NBS and CBS can, as pointed out above.
A free speech issue arises when a city attempts to regulate advertising on private buses, trains, billboards, buildings, etc.
JamesLill @ Mar 30th 2007 1:22PM
The scary part of this thread so far, People are actually making sense. This is so much better than the flamewars we normally see.
And yes lawyers are the bane of any civilized society. We gamers will have to start going to law school if we want any decent content out there.(micro-flame there?)
Dan @ Mar 30th 2007 1:26PM
The MBTA ban will collapse the minute the ESA visits the T. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the ban was always less about actual concern for children than it was about scoring political points and making the T look bad. Ten bucks says Grabuskas drops the ban at the first hint of lawsuit, and if he gets complaints, he'll simply state the T doesn't have the financial resources to engage in a legal battle it'll surely lose.
Greg @ Mar 30th 2007 1:32PM
1. This is NOT a free speech issue. This is an issue of advertising space, and the government (state, local, or federal) is under no constitutional obligation to sell that advertising space to anyone they don't want to, just as they're free to not sell advertising to cigarette companies, alcohol bottlers, or Larry Flint Publications if they don't want to.
2. Is it hypocrisy that the gov't will allow R-Rated movies or TVM-rated TV shows to be advertised in the space, but not M-rated video games? You're damn straight it's hypocrisy.
3. Lastly, let's save our energy for the idiots who want to actually ban and/or censor the games, and be less concerned about where they're advertised.
Russell @ Mar 30th 2007 1:54PM
Another example of why I haaaate boston.
Todd @ Mar 30th 2007 2:12PM
Since these "public" transits are actually owned and opperated by the state or city, technically the state or city can do whatever the hell they want.
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Mar 30th 2007 2:17PM
Greg, it is a constitutional issue as long as the advertising venues are owned by the Government, and if ads are considered as free speech, and if the ads are getting banned based on the content of the ads (and they are).
Lastly, there's plenty of energy left to fight this issue and also the outright bans on video games. Just like Dennis wrote, they're just different ways for the morality police to get video games relegated to the same status with porn. I will fight anything that does that, no matter what it is.
listereo @ Mar 30th 2007 2:41PM
The Boston T had entire cars plastered with Bacardi ads, there are regularly alocohol posters around, advertising for The Sopranos, and they had those posters for the skin lotion featuring plus-size models in their underwear. The GTA:VCS posters were the usual "faces of characters" fare people are used to from film and TV posters. If it were obscene advertisments, that'd make sense. As much as I hate to admit it, my fair city is full of ignorant "censor-crats" who still remember Grand Theft Auto's name from Hot Coffee. In their minds, it's all pornography. People are still getting a grip on what it means that games let people "do" these things instead of just watching them. I understand the concern, but the double standard is clear. Too much west-coast "parents shouldn't have to parent" madness dripping in through Cambridge. It's enough to make me vote independant.
Not that this isn't a paranoid, puritanical, suit-happy "Christian" nation in the first place, or anything.
Ryan LN @ Mar 30th 2007 3:05PM
While I know that I'm in an extreme, extreme minority here- but as a 36-year-old gaming LAWYER I have to speak in out in defense of some of our kind- why paint us all with the same brush? I am a prosecuter. I am the guy who, after some asshole rapes your mom, sets your house on fire and shoots you in the head, advocates on your behalf and on behalf of the government to prevent that person from seeing the light of day. Am I the problem? Are the lawyers who work on behalf of the ACLU to ensure that idiots like Jack Thompson don't regulate protected speech such as fun harmless video games into non-existence the problem? Are attorneys who sue monopolistic entities like Nintendo when they try to (in the 80's) foist there anti-competititve tendencies down the throats of a gaming populace held hostage? No. Lawyers are not the problem- the problem is caused by idiots, who come in every color, gender, profession and kind. Unfortunately, the world is often ruled by idiots, and these people generally have one trait in common: a belief not in doing things for the good of the people, but a belief in doing whatever is necessary to stay in power and perpeptuating that power for people of their choosing. That's why Jack Thompson and the Transit Authorities in Denver and Boston will always find idiot friends to help espouse their position. The fact that a lot of these idiots went to law school... I'm gonna say that that's just an unfortunate coincidence.
Ryan LN @ Mar 30th 2007 3:07PM
I also realize now that I spelled "prosecutor" wrong and am very, very embarrassed.
GhaleonQ @ Mar 30th 2007 3:36PM
Post 18, Greg's, said it all. TOPIC OVER.
32_Footsteps @ Mar 30th 2007 3:37PM
On the subject of finding advertising for the MBTA - actually, it does have trouble at that. I ride both the buses and the trains of the MBTA every day, and the ad spaces on both the exterior and interior of many buses and train cars are blank. And it's constantly facing budget shortfalls, with constant debate on how to make it finally stand on its own fiscally. It really isn't in the position of being able to pick and choose who can advertise on its space.
As for whether the 1st in partnership with the 14th Amendments apply, while it might be able to act as a private individual in terms of ad sales, a government-based entity still has to obey the Constitution. It doesn't get to skirt the 1st Amendment just because it's acting as a private sector entity for these purposes. And because they have made their decision on a business matter based on the restriction of speech it might find problematic, it does in fact become a 1st Amendment issue - Denver wisely saw this and decided to allow the ads.
Finally, on the comment about lawyers and them being "banes" - it's worth noting that in dictatorships, they often work very hard to restrict the reach and capability of lawyers. This is because lawyers are the ones who often are responsible for ensuring the government and its laws are not overstepping their bounds. One of Shakespeare's characters once said "The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers," and that was a sign the character in question was a ruthless autocrat out to subjugate the populace.
Of course, that's lost on many people, because lawyers aren't overly concerned with the PR for their profession.
Bluebreaker @ Mar 30th 2007 4:30PM
Say what you want about lawyers but at the end of the day, if they win our case we kiss up and hug them like our best friends. Not to mention throw lots of money at them.
duerra @ Mar 30th 2007 5:26PM
If the government can't engage in censorship, why can the FCC restrict television content?
Rubang B @ Mar 30th 2007 5:15PM
This is definitely an attack on free speech in that they are trying to equate a game rated 17+ with porn. They think that the 17 and up in the M-rating is the same as the 17 and up in the NC-17 rating, even though it's exactly like the 17 and up in an R-rating. Kids can't watch R-rated movies or play M-rated games unless their parents or guardians let them. Banning advertising for M-rated games but not R-rated movies is their way of defining video games as an art medium that is more dangerous than film. Oh noes the kids! And advertising for alcohol (21 and up) on the same bus just makes them all look dumb. Alcohol abuse kills more people (and thus more kids) every year than every other drug combined (and every movie and video game combined, obviously).
NeverSage @ Mar 30th 2007 6:27PM
I just got a little bit dumber after reading Steve's post. Way to make republicans look like ignorant pricks.
Isaac Klavsky @ Mar 31st 2007 9:41PM
The FCC can regulate television stations because transponder liscenses can be revoked. Its an option of be regulated or not broadcast. That's why pirate stations can be shut down; there's a liscense required to broadcast. From there it's a case of bullying and blackmail.