The Political Game: Welcome to the Slippery Slope
by Dennis McCauley 
{ Apr 7th 2008 at 6:59PM }
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
If you pay attention to the First Amendment arguments offered in defense of video games, you'll often hear reference to something called the "slippery slope." This does not refer to a downhill run in a new snowboarding game. The term is often used to warn against those who promise they will only censor us a little bit. For example, passing laws restricting video game sales might not seem to impact society at large, but it starts us down that slippery slope of censorship. Who knows where it might end? This month Grand Theft Auto IV might be restricted, but what do the hypocritical politicians and culture cops target next? Halo 3? Hip-hop? Comic books? Ulysses?
The video game industry is facing a bit of a slippery slope problem right now in Massachusetts – and it is, to a certain extent, their own fault. There, Mayor Thomas Menino is pushing legislation which would classify violent games as "harmful to minors" in the same legal sense as porn. Unlike most politicians, the blustering Menino freely tosses around the word "ban" and seems intent on enforcing his worldview on the population of Massachusetts. He recently told a Boston radio station, "Kids start at five, six, seven years old watching those video games. They think it's a way of life and I'm trying to make them understand there's a different way of life."
The Menino way, apparently.
To make matters worse, a key Menino staffer – Health and Human Services director Larry Mayes – testified before the Massachusetts Legislature that video games reward players for raping women. Can Mr. Mayes name even one such game? It simply doesn't exist. The legislators who will consider this bill were fed bad – yet very damaging – information by the Mayor's office.
Scary stuff, indeed.
Even scarier is that the Massachusetts video game bill is an adaptation of the one that our old pal Jack Thompson wrote for the state of Louisiana in 2006. That measure was discarded on constitutional grounds by a federal judge who absolutely ripped the Louisiana state government for allowing it to get that far. Louisiana is, of course, now on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars of the video game industry's legal fees.
While the video game industry has been aggressive in defending against such laws, it is clear that they dropped the ball in the Boston case. In late 2006 Menino and other Beantown censorcrats went after the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority for accepting GTA Vice City Stories ads on Boston's Green Line trains. Under intense political pressure from Menino and the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood, transit agency head Daniel Grabauskas abandoned his original First Amendment stance and capitulated. Grabauskas' public rationale was that the MBTA didn't accept adds for porn movies, so refusing M-rated game ads could be similarly justified.
The upshot was that a quasi-governmental agency, acting under pressure from the Mayor's Office, declared M-rated games on as on par with X-rated movies. And the video game industry let them get away with it. There was no First Amendment lawsuit. No significant public protest. How did the game biz allow this to happen without a fight?
There's little doubt that Menino's successful bullying of the local bus company emboldened him to undertake today's more drastic legislative push against video games. The game industry is rallying now, of course. But had they flexed their legal muscle on the transit ad issue, gamers might not be worrying about this new attempt to legislate our pastime.
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
If you pay attention to the First Amendment arguments offered in defense of video games, you'll often hear reference to something called the "slippery slope." This does not refer to a downhill run in a new snowboarding game. The term is often used to warn against those who promise they will only censor us a little bit. For example, passing laws restricting video game sales might not seem to impact society at large, but it starts us down that slippery slope of censorship. Who knows where it might end? This month Grand Theft Auto IV might be restricted, but what do the hypocritical politicians and culture cops target next? Halo 3? Hip-hop? Comic books? Ulysses?The video game industry is facing a bit of a slippery slope problem right now in Massachusetts – and it is, to a certain extent, their own fault. There, Mayor Thomas Menino is pushing legislation which would classify violent games as "harmful to minors" in the same legal sense as porn. Unlike most politicians, the blustering Menino freely tosses around the word "ban" and seems intent on enforcing his worldview on the population of Massachusetts. He recently told a Boston radio station, "Kids start at five, six, seven years old watching those video games. They think it's a way of life and I'm trying to make them understand there's a different way of life."
The Menino way, apparently.
To make matters worse, a key Menino staffer – Health and Human Services director Larry Mayes – testified before the Massachusetts Legislature that video games reward players for raping women. Can Mr. Mayes name even one such game? It simply doesn't exist. The legislators who will consider this bill were fed bad – yet very damaging – information by the Mayor's office.
Scary stuff, indeed.
Even scarier is that the Massachusetts video game bill is an adaptation of the one that our old pal Jack Thompson wrote for the state of Louisiana in 2006. That measure was discarded on constitutional grounds by a federal judge who absolutely ripped the Louisiana state government for allowing it to get that far. Louisiana is, of course, now on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars of the video game industry's legal fees.
While the video game industry has been aggressive in defending against such laws, it is clear that they dropped the ball in the Boston case. In late 2006 Menino and other Beantown censorcrats went after the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority for accepting GTA Vice City Stories ads on Boston's Green Line trains. Under intense political pressure from Menino and the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood, transit agency head Daniel Grabauskas abandoned his original First Amendment stance and capitulated. Grabauskas' public rationale was that the MBTA didn't accept adds for porn movies, so refusing M-rated game ads could be similarly justified.
The upshot was that a quasi-governmental agency, acting under pressure from the Mayor's Office, declared M-rated games on as on par with X-rated movies. And the video game industry let them get away with it. There was no First Amendment lawsuit. No significant public protest. How did the game biz allow this to happen without a fight?
There's little doubt that Menino's successful bullying of the local bus company emboldened him to undertake today's more drastic legislative push against video games. The game industry is rallying now, of course. But had they flexed their legal muscle on the transit ad issue, gamers might not be worrying about this new attempt to legislate our pastime.
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
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Shagittarius @ Apr 7th 2008 7:06PM
His chins are making me horney.
Dr. Doom @ Apr 7th 2008 7:49PM
Just so everyone knows Thomas Menino is a democrat. There is a large misconception around joystiq.com where all of the writers and most readers seem to think it's the republican party which is trying to rape our medium but I assure you, most republicans aren't. Just remember that democrats want to "save our children"...not our constitutional rights. Obama or Clinton will errode the gaming industry once they get into office in 2009. So vote away! You guys wants change.....oh you're gonna get it!
ScallionN @ Apr 7th 2008 8:09PM
Politicians pick gaming as a scapegoat because it';s easy, Republican and Democrat alike. If McCain thinks he'll secure votes by bashing the vidya, he'll do it. There aren't any big lobbyists in the gaming industry (besides people who represent Microsoft, no doubt, and the ESRB isn't like the MPAA, so it won't be represented as well. You need to look at things more objectively.
XIII @ Apr 7th 2008 8:27PM
Exactly. The general public assume that all video games are made for children, which we as gamers know is a gross misconception. like any form of entertainment medium, there are those concepts that are developed fro younger audiences, and those for adults. It shouldn't be the developers fault for the retailer for not providing the approrpiate oversight of sales, or even worse that the parent's can't properly regulate what their children are exposed to.
Unfortunately, until video games are reclassified as "interactive digital entertainment," or something along those lines, so that certain antiquated presumtpitons can be removed, issues like this law will continue to appear.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Apr 8th 2008 9:36AM
Whenever there's a negative story about a politician, there's an easy way to tell what political party they belong to. If its a republican, the headline will say "Republican politician (does badness here)". If its a democrat, there will be no mention of party affiliation in the headline or body of the story.
One need only look back at the Spitzer scandal to see this double standard in action. It took me about 3 days after the story broke to find out that he was a democrat.
This article, I just assumed it was, because its Massachusetts.
Dr Doom @ Apr 8th 2008 10:56AM
Right. If it's a repbulican trying to pass some gaming law you know immediately that it's a republican but if it's a democrat you have to do your research. That was my whole point without spelling it out for everyone about media in general and joystiq here. The double standard. The bias! Anytime there is a posting on joystiq that deals with a republican (do your research and look back at past post) joystiq will tell you REPUBLICAN bla bla bla but if it's a democrat there's no mention. Is that fair? NO!
And I know full well that both parties do what they do for votes....uh what do you think "save the children" means.....it's all for votes.
My point is that Republicans are made out to be this hideous beast that wants to stop gaming, but if you sit down and do some research you'll be very surprised to find out that it's mainly the democratic party that is trying to destroy our industry. You guys just think it's Repbulicans cause of how the media portray's issues.
And I'm not a republican. I'm a libertarian that's fed up with bias.
Courtney @ Apr 8th 2008 1:26PM
Just as a point to those arguing that Republicans are always identified as such while Democrats are not (at least on Joystiq), a search for each of the parties on Joystiq shows only a single story in which party affiliation was used in a headline (South Park Republican defends video games in WSJ op-ed). In scanning several stories that relate to video game legislation, there are plenty of examples where the politicians in question were identified as Democrats (this mayor and Kansas Guv Sebelius are two exceptions).
Of course this quick analysis applies to Joystiq only and not the media in general.
albinogoldfish @ Apr 7th 2008 7:08PM
I'm out of witty retorts...I am...broken...
Worsel @ Apr 7th 2008 7:34PM
Yet another Masshole proves that he is out of touch with reality...
"...a key Menino staffer – Health and Human Services director Larry Mayes – testified before the Massachusetts Legislature that video games reward players for raping women."
I bet $5 this jackass was thinking of Custer's Revenge.
Reuben @ Apr 7th 2008 7:42PM
I second that Custer bet. Also, this sickens me.
Lone Starr @ Apr 7th 2008 9:21PM
The makers of Custer's Revenge predicted that legislators would attack gaming in the future. Thus, because they knew their game would not be well received by gamers, they brought it to market anyways to get their own revenge on the very same gamers who are now having good games threatened.
BRILLIANT!
XIII @ Apr 7th 2008 8:12PM
The amusing part about this, is that when they banned the GTA ads on the MBTA, they did absoultley nothing to the liquor and beer ads that covered the trains and stations. So instead of seeing ads for a video game, people got to see a train that looked like a bottle of Tanqueray and 8 Budweiser ads in the station, because underage drinkning isn't more of a concern.
As a Boston residnet for 8 years, I've seen Menino do some great things and really reach out to communities, but every now and then he does something stupid like this.
Max Headroom @ Apr 7th 2008 8:21PM
I've just got to say that was a terrible opening paragraph. The slippery slope kind of argument is often regarded as a debating fallacy because it just assumes things will happen. And that's what your first paragraph does (but in question format). Comic books and hip-hop (as well as music in general) are less regulated than ever. I've even seen a Cannibal Corpse CD in Wal-Mart. Mainstream movies can be more graphic than ever. If anything, we are seeing a trend towards less strict regulation, but you suggest that all of that will be reversed due to a law designed to protect children. You may or may not be right, but we have no way of knowing so we cannot assume one way or the other.
I'm not advocating Menino's position, I'm just saying that the slipery slope argument is as ill-informed as some of these politician's comments are.
Ghen @ Apr 8th 2008 7:55AM
good point. Conventional wisdom states that a slippery slope argument makes sense, but conventional wisdom is usually wrong or misguided.
Rob @ Apr 8th 2008 8:56AM
Except the albums in Wal-mart are censored versions, different than the ones elsewhere. So I'd say slippery slope still applies there.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Apr 8th 2008 9:26AM
Not to mention we've seen the slippery slope happen in recent history. As much as it pains me to do so, you need only look at Nazi Germany to see it in action. While I'm sure we are not Nazi's, and reasonably certain we aren't in Germany, government has a habit of exerting ever greater amounts of control once the populace allows it only a little.
Courtney @ Apr 8th 2008 1:47PM
Aaaaahhh! Godwin's Law!
Anyway, the slippery slope argument does not in fact assume anything will happen. It is a fallacy when the person using it assumes certain things will happen. It is valid when the arguer has independent justification for showing why the next steps down the slope are inevitable (I'll even accept highly likely).
If legislators or proponents of some law have expressed a desire to create further limitations or bans after their current goals are achieved, that could be considered justification for anticipating a slippery slope. With the good mayor here, we have a case of one victory in the past and a clear desire to further limit, ban and control video games. That is, to me, a recipe for a valid slippery slope argument.
Shogan @ Apr 7th 2008 8:45PM
I think a lot of these politicians, even Jack Thompson, have the best intentions, but take it a little far due to not fully understanding video games.
I don't think children should be playing GTA, or Halo, or CoD4. I don't think we need MORE laws in this country either though. It should be the responsibility of parents to know what their kids are playing or watching (mine sure as hell did), but a lot of Parents these days are either lazy or ignorant.
merf1350 @ Apr 8th 2008 12:29PM
I agree with your second paragraph, but would like to remind you which road good intentions paved. And Jack is just an idiot.
VoiceofHarold @ Apr 7th 2008 8:49PM
Yo DC, please don't be afraid to use the term Democrat. Nobody will hate you for it. Ok some people will but not everyone.
K, Thnx Bai!
Batzarro @ Apr 7th 2008 11:28PM
" testified before the Massachusetts Legislature that video games reward players for raping women"
Must be an Otaku to have played Battle Raper...
Worst Review Ever @ Apr 7th 2008 11:50PM
This guy's just a mayor, right? Unless you're Rudy Giuliani, does it matter what a mayor thinks? I'm pretty sure that I was elected mayor of Provo, UT and just never showed up.
SharpShooter @ Apr 8th 2008 12:40AM
Hmm.. a game that rewards players for raping women... instead of just making up things, why don't they go after real things, like the crappy gun laws America has. Every time I look in the news somebody gets shot.
Kujel @ Apr 8th 2008 12:54AM
They can't SharpShooter, then they'd fix something and it would take years to fuck it up again.
Max Headroom @ Apr 8th 2008 1:25AM
What's the saying? "Today, over 80 million US gun owners didn't kill anyone." Where's the news story about that?
MasterGameze @ Apr 8th 2008 3:36AM
This is the point I make weekly, some times daily over at Game Politics. Why is the industry so unwilling to fight back? Why do they sit by, and let lies and misinformation rule the day?
I had hoped that Doug Lowenstien, former head of the ESA, depature from the industry would find his replacment actually in possession of a Pair of BALLS!!!!!
Alas, it seems all it did was enforce the same old same old for the industry, that is to say, doing NOTHING!!.
ManicBomber @ Apr 8th 2008 5:33AM
Who would the industry spokes person be in this case? I'm not aware of the gaming industry having a central person to respond to these general accusations. I mean, I'm sure individual developers can respond and other people, but I'm not aware of a single person who should be.
Ghede @ Apr 8th 2008 4:38AM
A game that rewards you for rape does exist. Custer's Revenge. However, it hardly applies seeing as it is Thirty-six years old. Still, it does exist.
Ghede @ Apr 8th 2008 4:38AM
Damnit. Meant to say 26 years old.
Bedlam @ Apr 8th 2008 6:53AM
@ Max Headroom
What's the saying? "Today, over 80 million US 'Game' owners didn't kill anyone." Where's the news story about that?
Just to bring it back on topic :)
If people want to protect the kids, dont legislate - try parenting and good teaching.
MasterGameze @ Apr 8th 2008 6:09AM
@ Maniac Bomber
The industry is represented politicaly and legal be the ESA, Entertainment Software Administration. THere former boss was Doug Lowenstein. There current Boss is Mike Gallager I belive. They are the ones who fight these laws in court, so they should be the ones going after the industries enemies.
AwesomeTown @ Apr 8th 2008 7:37AM
It seems to me that this is just the way Menino's and our parents (or grandparents) generation thinks. They seem like a joke to us, but when you don't know anything about video games, and get fed information about people who don't know anything about video games, it's just a recipe for dumbassness. (Can I say that? Is that even a word?)
Anyway, I just see this stuff getting worse before it gets better. Until we can get actual gamers up and into government in future years, the only way I can see this stuff not happening is by the big guys like EA lobbying.
IMHO, of course.
Altair @ Apr 12th 2008 4:54PM
If this dosent go under, were boned.
meist3r @ Apr 8th 2008 8:39AM
I can only laugh at this guy. There are so many wrong assumptions in his argument. Then he is fucking old, he doesn't have a single clue what he is talking about "children WATCHING video games"?? where is that? I usually PLAY the game and learn about choice, consequences and stuff like that. How is he going to stop it? Even if there WAS a ban who cares? They can't stop people from copying games so they can't stop them playing the games.
But what is the most ridiculous of all is, and I agree with many of the other posters, that this is simply a stupid publicity stunt. Everyone (and I mean literally everyone) knows that the USofA have way more serious problems than a bunch of kids playing violent videogames.
I get so angry when I read something like that. It's US soldiers that can sign up to the god damn Marines with 17!!! you can drive a 2-ton weapon made of steel at the age of 16, in most states it is legal to posess multiple large caliber firearms. Your economy is fucking itself and screwing half of the world over with it, the brilliant banking system of the US has brought HUGE trouble over investment bankers all over the planet and this dipshit seriously tries to ban videogames? Is that all he thinks there is to do? How will that solve school violence or bad education?
Violence has been there longer than videogames, longer than electricity, longer than humans ... it will not stop by taking people's chance to learn about and deal with violence in a safe environment. I bet this bastard had Bullies at his school but strangely it's virtual violence they are fighting against not the real one.
Sorry all US readers, don't get me wrong I love you all but sometimes I really hate your country (as a political body).
JustCC @ Apr 8th 2008 10:10AM
Our country does indeed have a strange dissonance between our politics and the people that elect those that control our politics.
As far as blaming the games and not the actual violence, I'm going out on a limb to say maybe they're thinking in terms of "attacking the roots" of the cause. And right now virtual violence is perceived to be the cause of real violence today. Their actions on blameing video games are still wrong, but not totally irrational.
JustCC @ Apr 8th 2008 10:05AM
On the general topic of the slippery slope it also not possible for a slippery slope to have an end? This is what most politicians overlook on. It's not an ENDLESS slope, just a slippery slope. Everything does come to a stop eventually.
anele @ Apr 8th 2008 12:31PM
Well, the slippery slope is also a legal argument. As for having an ending, sure, it will eventually end, but is that reason enough to let it start? If we allow it to start by regulate video games, then where will it stop? Movies? Artwork? Books?
Almost all legal rulings are based on precedent; the reason legislation regulating video games has failed is because past rulings have said that video games have First Amendment protection. (yay Judge Posner!) This precedent will continue until the Supreme Court makes a ruling.
What Dennis is saying here is that since the industry didn't fight the original equating of video games to porn, it allowed Boston's mayor to take that argument and slide it from advertising to sales.
Binarygeek @ Apr 10th 2008 3:47PM
the problem is when that slippery slope does come to an end, just what happened before it did? were games legislated only? maybe they wanted to start censoring books, music? how about movies? Censorship is censorship. No one wants violent games in the hands of children, but when it encroaches on freedoms of speech it's then a larger issue. It becomes "who decides what people can say?" What if you have something to say that someone doesn't like? does it mean they should be able to stop you from saying it? and if you let them tell you what to say, maybe they should tell you how to think as well, because chances are you think differently than them about alot of things. Welcome to that slippery slope we've mentioned. You might get those freedoms back in 50-100 years, whenever they get bored with using that power or someone stands up to them and says "No more!"
Tony @ Apr 8th 2008 2:42PM
remember everybody, this is the same mayor who blew up lite-brites to protect our country from the Mooninite invasion