LGJ: Revenge of the Regulators
by Mark Methenitis 
{ Oct 24th 2009 at 2:00AM } 
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
There's an old saying by Benjamin Franklin: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." By that definition, most of the attempts to regulate video game content are insanity. Most have taken the same approach, with the exception of Jack Thompson's last attempt in Utah, which at least took a new angle. It's for this reason that I'm always interested in new takes on the now tiresome idea of regulating game content, and when GamePolitics posted one such new research paper by Renee Newman Knake, Assistant Professor at Michigan State University College of Law, earlier this week, I took the time to read it. But when you boil down this "new approach," is it really something novel, or just more "insanity?" Well, that's what we're going to explore today. I do want to say, before I get started, that much of the legal analysis is relatively sound, and as many problems as I have with this paper, the author does deserve some credit for those parts of the analysis.
The paper's main focus is a discussion of "ecogenerism," and thus my discussion will largely be a dissection of the notable flaws in this approach. However, it is worth noting outright that this entire paper either makes its agenda quite clear from the outset or frames the debate in a less than accurate way to make the discussion seem greater than it is, as it starts from the basic flawed premise that we have "proven" a "causal" link between media violence, specifically video game violence, and real world violence. Even a cursory read over sites like VG Researcher and GamePolitics indicate the contrary. The supposition further ignores any benefits games may provide. Most importantly, it still ignores many of the fundamental flaws in video game research that have been pointed out in great detail. And the paper even ignores the more recent FTC data on the sale of violent games to children in favor of outdated metrics in order to cast a more negative light. But even ignoring this, the ecogenerism argument still has some substantial shortcomings.
Let's start with the basics. "Ecogenerism" is the creation of Professor Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, and the basic premise is simply this: There needs to be a paradigm shift in the analysis of laws to protect children in the manner of the shift in laws that protect the environment. After all, there was a time when the environment was not something that could be allowed to get in the way of business and free enterprise. So, the theory is that the paradigm needs to shift such that children are viewed like the environment, and that games and other "bad" media needs to be controlled like pollutants or toxic waste. The theory centers on valuing interconnected systems over individual rights, though seems to ignore the force of the Constitution in sacrificing these rights. The theory posits that we want a "healthy" environment for children to grow up in, but notably omits whose definition of "healthy" is being applied.
It's at this point where a few major disconnects in this analogy and further analogy are passed over by both Prof. Woodhouse and Assistant Prof. Knake. It's actually difficult to find a good place to begin because of the numerous problems with this argument and others presented in this paper. So I'll start with the most meta issue and work down to a few specific references on other points. The first major stumbling block for this theory is that there is no comparison between the right of free enterprise and the right of free speech. Business has been subject to government controls since the birth of this nation, but speech has always enjoyed nearly true freedom. To say that a simple philosophical principal is on par with a Constitutional right is simply misleading, and the courts have been uniform in their stance that free speech is not something easily limited by government. Yes, the paper is correct in that some of the analysis is inconsistent between courts that have addressed this issue, but that is a common occurrence prior to a Supreme Court decision on the matter. It is far more telling that even with these differences in approach, the result has been consistent in all jurisdictions: Video games are protected by freedom of speech. And that freedom exists, above all else, to protect the speech that most people would want to repress, not the kind, flowery speech that raises no eyebrows.
The second is that the idea of parental controls are ignored because of the failures of the V-Chip. While the V-Chip is certainly anything but a success story, the parental controls integrated into current generation consoles are far more robust and easy to understand and integrate. More importantly, it's not like the content is a surprise. If you bring a computer home, you know what your kids can get into on the internet, and if you bring a game console home, you know the kind of game content that is out there. As clueless as many allege parents are, you would have to be living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut to not know there is game content that is inappropriate for children between the advertisements and the often overblown news stories on those topics.
A more appropriate analogy here might be vitamins. A multi-vitamin for children, in appropriate doses, has many positive and no negative side effects, except in rare cases. However, an overdose of vitamins can be fatal. Parents who bring home vitamins don't put them out in a dish on the floor and let the kids go nuts with them; they keep them in a childproof container and give them one a day. Similarly, video games, in appropriate doses, have been shown to have major cognitive and hand eye coordination benefits, except in rare cases when the child is, for example, mentally disturbed. Letting your 8 year old play Gears of War for 10 hours a day, on the other hand, may very well damage their mental state and emotional well being. So, as a parent, isn't it prudent to turn on the parental controls and console limits -- the "child proof cap" -- of the digital age, rather than just let the kids do as they please?
The third deals with a quote from page 33 of the paper, "As with contagious diseases, and firearms, when one child in a peer group is exposed to risk, the entire group is potentially exposed." While on its face this is true, because kids play games at friends' houses, the implication by association is absurd. A video game is not meningitis or AIDS, where occasional, isolated, or incidental exposure can lead to serious injury or death. Nor is a video game anything like a handgun, where exposure can lead to someone being seriously wounded, maimed or killed. Spending an hour with Halo or Borderlands at a friend's house isn't even in the same galaxy of potential harm as a kid having a gun or a serious illness at school.
The fourth deals with the incongruous ideas presented beginning on page 28. Postal II is cited as the game that the California law targets; though Grand Theft Auto is more often targeted as the "blight" of the game industry. However, the statute, as written, doesn't seem to understand the idea of a sandbox game, and if Grand Theft Auto IV is taken by it's missions, has a significant storyline with the same kind of political statement as the average Scorsese film. If Metal Gear Solid 4 had its political message placed in a GTA sandbox setting, then these restrictions would be impacting political speech, which is the most sacred and the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment. It is this lack of a true knowledge of the content that continually appears in so many arguments for video game regulation.
Finally, the paper contends and the ecogenerism theory contents that mass media has replaced parental control, and that parents are unable or unwilling to fight back. If parents are not in control, then the issue is not with the media; it's with the parents. Delegation of responsibility is not the solution. Moreover, if their point is to be accepted as true, then what makes any of these regulators think their regulations will actually have an impact? Kids can get around their parents; kids already get around laws for alcohol and tobacco. What makes this different? And as digital media increases and digital distribution increases, it will be even easier to avoid retail-based controls which require ID.
I could probably continue for pages with issues like these, but I am going to stop myself at this point. The question remains: Is this truly a new view on video game violence? No. This is, at best, a rose by any other name; or rather, another way for politicians to impose their will on the public at large such that a minority who wish to demonize one media can control what happens in the living rooms of the American public. The courts have frequently said that the activity of the bedroom is beyond the scope of government control, and I, for one, think the activity of the living room should be as well. Perhaps they should be less worried about the content, and more concerned with the impact some games have on people's real lives through addiction, and even then bans and restrictions won't be nearly as useful as simply educating the public and helping those who need help.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.
The paper's main focus is a discussion of "ecogenerism," and thus my discussion will largely be a dissection of the notable flaws in this approach. However, it is worth noting outright that this entire paper either makes its agenda quite clear from the outset or frames the debate in a less than accurate way to make the discussion seem greater than it is, as it starts from the basic flawed premise that we have "proven" a "causal" link between media violence, specifically video game violence, and real world violence. Even a cursory read over sites like VG Researcher and GamePolitics indicate the contrary. The supposition further ignores any benefits games may provide. Most importantly, it still ignores many of the fundamental flaws in video game research that have been pointed out in great detail. And the paper even ignores the more recent FTC data on the sale of violent games to children in favor of outdated metrics in order to cast a more negative light. But even ignoring this, the ecogenerism argument still has some substantial shortcomings.
Let's start with the basics. "Ecogenerism" is the creation of Professor Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, and the basic premise is simply this: There needs to be a paradigm shift in the analysis of laws to protect children in the manner of the shift in laws that protect the environment. After all, there was a time when the environment was not something that could be allowed to get in the way of business and free enterprise. So, the theory is that the paradigm needs to shift such that children are viewed like the environment, and that games and other "bad" media needs to be controlled like pollutants or toxic waste. The theory centers on valuing interconnected systems over individual rights, though seems to ignore the force of the Constitution in sacrificing these rights. The theory posits that we want a "healthy" environment for children to grow up in, but notably omits whose definition of "healthy" is being applied.
It's at this point where a few major disconnects in this analogy and further analogy are passed over by both Prof. Woodhouse and Assistant Prof. Knake. It's actually difficult to find a good place to begin because of the numerous problems with this argument and others presented in this paper. So I'll start with the most meta issue and work down to a few specific references on other points. The first major stumbling block for this theory is that there is no comparison between the right of free enterprise and the right of free speech. Business has been subject to government controls since the birth of this nation, but speech has always enjoyed nearly true freedom. To say that a simple philosophical principal is on par with a Constitutional right is simply misleading, and the courts have been uniform in their stance that free speech is not something easily limited by government. Yes, the paper is correct in that some of the analysis is inconsistent between courts that have addressed this issue, but that is a common occurrence prior to a Supreme Court decision on the matter. It is far more telling that even with these differences in approach, the result has been consistent in all jurisdictions: Video games are protected by freedom of speech. And that freedom exists, above all else, to protect the speech that most people would want to repress, not the kind, flowery speech that raises no eyebrows.
The second is that the idea of parental controls are ignored because of the failures of the V-Chip. While the V-Chip is certainly anything but a success story, the parental controls integrated into current generation consoles are far more robust and easy to understand and integrate. More importantly, it's not like the content is a surprise. If you bring a computer home, you know what your kids can get into on the internet, and if you bring a game console home, you know the kind of game content that is out there. As clueless as many allege parents are, you would have to be living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut to not know there is game content that is inappropriate for children between the advertisements and the often overblown news stories on those topics.
A more appropriate analogy here might be vitamins. A multi-vitamin for children, in appropriate doses, has many positive and no negative side effects, except in rare cases. However, an overdose of vitamins can be fatal. Parents who bring home vitamins don't put them out in a dish on the floor and let the kids go nuts with them; they keep them in a childproof container and give them one a day. Similarly, video games, in appropriate doses, have been shown to have major cognitive and hand eye coordination benefits, except in rare cases when the child is, for example, mentally disturbed. Letting your 8 year old play Gears of War for 10 hours a day, on the other hand, may very well damage their mental state and emotional well being. So, as a parent, isn't it prudent to turn on the parental controls and console limits -- the "child proof cap" -- of the digital age, rather than just let the kids do as they please?
The third deals with a quote from page 33 of the paper, "As with contagious diseases, and firearms, when one child in a peer group is exposed to risk, the entire group is potentially exposed." While on its face this is true, because kids play games at friends' houses, the implication by association is absurd. A video game is not meningitis or AIDS, where occasional, isolated, or incidental exposure can lead to serious injury or death. Nor is a video game anything like a handgun, where exposure can lead to someone being seriously wounded, maimed or killed. Spending an hour with Halo or Borderlands at a friend's house isn't even in the same galaxy of potential harm as a kid having a gun or a serious illness at school.
The fourth deals with the incongruous ideas presented beginning on page 28. Postal II is cited as the game that the California law targets; though Grand Theft Auto is more often targeted as the "blight" of the game industry. However, the statute, as written, doesn't seem to understand the idea of a sandbox game, and if Grand Theft Auto IV is taken by it's missions, has a significant storyline with the same kind of political statement as the average Scorsese film. If Metal Gear Solid 4 had its political message placed in a GTA sandbox setting, then these restrictions would be impacting political speech, which is the most sacred and the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment. It is this lack of a true knowledge of the content that continually appears in so many arguments for video game regulation.
Finally, the paper contends and the ecogenerism theory contents that mass media has replaced parental control, and that parents are unable or unwilling to fight back. If parents are not in control, then the issue is not with the media; it's with the parents. Delegation of responsibility is not the solution. Moreover, if their point is to be accepted as true, then what makes any of these regulators think their regulations will actually have an impact? Kids can get around their parents; kids already get around laws for alcohol and tobacco. What makes this different? And as digital media increases and digital distribution increases, it will be even easier to avoid retail-based controls which require ID.
I could probably continue for pages with issues like these, but I am going to stop myself at this point. The question remains: Is this truly a new view on video game violence? No. This is, at best, a rose by any other name; or rather, another way for politicians to impose their will on the public at large such that a minority who wish to demonize one media can control what happens in the living rooms of the American public. The courts have frequently said that the activity of the bedroom is beyond the scope of government control, and I, for one, think the activity of the living room should be as well. Perhaps they should be less worried about the content, and more concerned with the impact some games have on people's real lives through addiction, and even then bans and restrictions won't be nearly as useful as simply educating the public and helping those who need help.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dr. Bradwart, Dark Lord of the Sith @ Oct 24th 2009 2:08AM
Laws involve the government. I doubt more than five percent of those freaking morons in Congress (BOTH parties) have actually bothered to read the Constitution.
Thank God the Supreme Court is on our side...for now.
Dr. Bradwart, Dark Lord of the Sith @ Oct 24th 2009 2:09AM
You're walking a fine line there, mister.
PoonDaddy @ Oct 24th 2009 2:09AM
Clearly, you are one of these "kids" the article is talking about!
trailerpark1976 @ Oct 24th 2009 2:15AM
Why can't Mark Methenitis run for a national political office? This guy really should.
Anti-Villian @ Oct 24th 2009 2:39AM
Mark Methenitis for PM
oh wait... he's american... Mark Methenitis for prime minister or something.
Yino all this talk about banning video games kinda reminds me how Hitler banned art, and the similar bans they have in Iran, people like barbara are too self righteous to understand.
Anti-Villian @ Oct 24th 2009 2:40AM
Awwww I made a Hitler comparison, my bad ;.;
Kadamon @ Oct 24th 2009 4:14AM
Not even 5 comments in and we get a Godwin.
Valid point though.
Asmerom (PSN: neon6plz) @ Oct 24th 2009 3:10AM
Any reason you have that we should care you're first?
Even on YouTube that shit is reviled.
Shagittarius @ Oct 24th 2009 3:15AM
REGULATORS!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x5Olen_1co
...mount up
gordo @ Oct 24th 2009 10:37AM
Sixteen in the clip,and one in the hole...
adam @ Oct 24th 2009 3:29AM
The protection of children campaign is a relatively new idea in (north) american history, and it is an extremely new idea in world history. Historically, the argument had nothing to do with children but with people who had conservative leanings who wanted objectionable material banned for everyone. The best argument that they could think of was the 'protect children' argument, and it's been used ever since. So, historically, it's been about censorship NOT protection.
Mike @ Oct 24th 2009 3:50AM
usually government-run services designed to protect children and young people who are 18 or under and encourage family stability. This might be more about censorship than child protection.cyprus car
Extinction @ Oct 24th 2009 5:24AM
Question: Now that all these flaws have been pointed out, what has become of this? Has the idiot who made all these lies up being stopped? Or does he continue on unabated?
I hate when we find stuff like this out and nothing happens
gordo @ Oct 24th 2009 10:40AM
Oh they wont stop. Ever. Tried doing it with music in the 80s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
Monica Dickey @ Oct 24th 2009 5:05PM
ah people are always afraid of new media but look at the progress we've made!
when I was little, I don't think anyone could say ass on TV, now it's perfectly ok to name shows after it.
terminator 4 gets a PG rating now when it was about as violent as T2 which got an R.
Video games will follow suit I'm sure. People just need to get over the rating issue and trust it like they trust the movie rating system... which seems to be ignored half the time nowadays anyway.
Silicon Siren @ Oct 24th 2009 5:26AM
Well Franklin didn't come up with the saying; he just made it popular in our culture (it is repeated countless times in our modern culture through many people like Einstein and mediums even in current movies). I've heard nearly the same quote verbatim translated from old Latin texts in my ancient history studies. Except the translation means "madness" more than it would "insanity." I personally like the madness spin, it sounds cooler.
Hydrophobicfish (PSN: HydrophobicFish) @ Oct 24th 2009 10:45AM
Why do you hate Ben Franklin?
Are you a card carrying communist card carrier or something?
Ben Franklin loves you, and he'll accept you into his kingdom if you accept him into his heart.
LegendaryRedass @ Oct 24th 2009 7:17AM
These are the same tactics that are always used when our rights come under attack. They've been doing it with the second ammendment for at least 50 years. The reason I mention the second ammendment is that these same arguments being used to regulate games have been used to go after guns as well. If you did some homework you'd find out gun control doesn't work. I'm not anti or pro-gun, I just believe in the constitution, and common sense.
Gun control and, more recently, videogames, are an easy target. If they can chip away at those rights it opens the door for them to go after the others. And you'll always hear the "greater good" argument, such as public health or safety. Once they get through that first barrier, it's over.
I just hope people don't wait to care until it affects something they personally care about, like videogames and the Internet. Just remember, the more power we give the government, the less rights we have. And it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're two sides of the same coin. That R and D shit is just a tool to keep us arguing and take the spotlight off them. And they've used it well the last 9 years.
BloodShot Robot @ Oct 24th 2009 7:35AM
I would like to create "Parentism". My basic premise is simply this: Parents should take interest in their own childrens well being, and the government should should mind their own damn business.
adamgreeney @ Oct 24th 2009 8:15AM
In my long, tortuous history in customer service I have worked in a gas station, and a Gamestop. The gas station sold booze and cigarettes, while Gamestop sold "M" games. Within the first two months I worked at Gamestop, we had 4 attempts by the ESRB to sting us (one time, a guy was fired for not taking the money from the adult that was present at the transaction, even though she said it was ok for the kid to buy the game). At the gas station we had one attempt to sting us for selling booze to kids in an entire year.
They strictly limit kids access to "violent" games, just as they do anything else that isn't "safe" for them. What more can be done that doesn't start to change the content of the game itself? Another idiotic insult to science here, one that creates the results it wants as opposed to the results that reflect reality.
schwal @ Oct 24th 2009 8:15AM
This reminds me of another Franklin quote:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Even applies when there is no security to be gained.
Premature ejaculation man @ Oct 26th 2009 4:21AM
That's usually the secret part. They don't want you to know you don't get added security.
Nook @ Oct 24th 2009 9:21AM
the governments view on the founding fathers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio
jayeffaar @ Oct 24th 2009 10:29AM
A "philosophical principal" is a school manager who likes to quote Descartes. I think the word the author was looking for was "principle".
Hydrophobicfish (PSN: HydrophobicFish) @ Oct 24th 2009 10:42AM
And lo, the skies did part, as the angels sang. The children wept tears of joy at the mere thought. God had saw all that he had created, and gifted upon humanity once more
Today was the day that LiveLife69 got a first
Today is the day we will remember forever.
adamgreeney @ Oct 24th 2009 10:55AM
There has yet to be a shred of evidence to support the idea that video game violence has any impact whatsoever on kids, nor will there ever be. In order to be accurate you would have to test thousands of kids, all with identical home lives, school lives (friends, bullys, teachers, aptitude), mental makeup (histories of mental illness, IQ) and then have been exposed to the exact same stimuli growing up. Otherwise there are far too many outliers to get a handle on what is causing what.
Violent people will gravitate towards violent mediums for sure, but out of the millions of gamers out there, how many are psychotically violent? I'd be willing to bet my systems and every game I own that it is not even 1%. If we see a comprehensive study that can determine that it was video games and not social, emotional and economic factors that made a kid shoot up his school, I'll change my tune. Until then, find another crusade and stay off my controller.
WREturns (Please buy and rate my iPhone game, Shape Tapper!) @ Oct 24th 2009 11:13AM
That's not entirely accurate as it's not possible. But if you get a big enough sample you could get pretty accurate results. What they need to do is determine behavior after a gaming session and then compare it to behavior that follows recreational pursuits like competitive sports, watching a movie with similar content, etc. I would be interested in a study like that.
Unfortunately, most science now is political "scientism". It's determining the answer first and then finding data to support it.
adamgreeney @ Oct 24th 2009 11:24AM
Regardless of sample size, you still have to account for all those other factors. How a kid reacts to ANY media is going to be based on how the kid was raised, the mental ability and/or instabilities, and all of those other factors. All of those have been proven time and again to have a major impact on a child's psyche. How they interpret violence in games, movies, music or books is going to be dependent on their lifestyle and the parenting.
Your idea of following them and monitoring their behavior in EVERY aspect of their lives would be far more telling than just judging behavior before and after a gaming session.
This reminds me of the study from 3-4 years ago where doctors polled 100 MALE undergrads, aged 18-21 after playing either GTAIV or Simpsons: Hit and Run. They found that those playing the violent game (Hit and Run isn't violent? Really?) were more PERMISSIVE towards drug use and drinking.
Read that again. It isn't that they actually did the drugs, or wanted to do them, they were just OK with someone ELSE doing it. And what 18-21 year old male isn't ok with that? These studies always ask leading questions, set up the answers they want and then cry "Proof!" from the mountain top. When i see one that takes every other social factor that causes violent behavior into account, i'll listen.
WREturns (Please buy and rate my iPhone game, Shape Tapper!) @ Oct 24th 2009 12:17PM
I don't disagree with you but what you're proposing isn't possible. Comparing games to other activities that produce similar feelings or reactions is where you want to take these kind of things. If you can say, "A gaming session produces similar emotions and behaviors as a game of basketball" then you can get people off of our nuts. All they'll be able say is that basketball is as bad as gaming, and no one is going to say that so they'll just have to leave gaming the hell alone.
pseth @ Oct 24th 2009 11:34AM
Let me just start out by saying that I agree that there is little reason to be concerned about video games and I don't believe they should be banned or restricted. I have conducted research on video games and read the literature - and while I agree that violent games can increase aggression, the aggression tends to be pretty mild and the literature is very sparse to support the idea that violent video games will lead to actual violence rather than just aggression.
But, there are a couple of flaws in your argument as well. First, although there have been some studies showing cognitive benefits of video games, the benefits are very limited. Specifically, the benefits tend to only be found for people with cognitive deficits - mostly the elderly.
Additionally, a game doesn't have to be violent to provide benefits to cognitive skills. Both Tetris and FPS have been shown to increase visuospatial skills. When selecting a game to help someone develop these skills, it's probably best to go with the nonviolent rather than the violent game. Given the potential risk of violent games, it doesn't seem wise to suggest that people engage in them to train their cognitive skills, when there are other ways of doing so. It's like telling someone to drink red wine regularly for the antioxidants - there are plenty of other foods/drinks that can provide antioxidants that don't carry with them the risk of liver disease.
As for the "contagion" issue - Research has shown that children who interact with other deviant children tend to become more deviant themselves. As such there is the risk of contagion. This would require, however, that video games have a stronger effect on aggression than they really do. Additionally, what the author might be talking about (but not clearly elucidating) is the idea that others could be harmed physically by a child made to be violent by playing video games. Again, not the best argument, but not an entirely flawed argument.
As for the parents - yes, parents should be aware. But many of them ignore (or are completely ignorant to) the evidence concerning violent video games and consequently ignore ESRB ratings. There have been several studies showing that the majority of parents don't attend to ESRB ratings, others don't understand them, and still others who don't care, even though they are aware. Of course one can hardly blame video game companies on this one. They shouldn't really be responsible for monitoring other people's children. But perhaps a greater effort on the part of video game companies to raise awareness and encourage parents to follow the guidelines. Additionally, even if the parents are aware, some video games stores will still sell M rated games to minors. And why not, it's a sale for them and if they get caught, there's no risk of punishment. The employee might get fired, but the business will continue.
Finally, I would agree with you that the addictive component of games is of more concern than the violent content. Clearly, video games can be addictive to some individuals and severely interfere with their normal lives. If anything is going to be done concerning video games, helping people with an addiction find treatment is a much better task for the government.
John @ Oct 24th 2009 11:53AM
I wonder if people actually know that the most violent, sex oriented games are already censored through the magic of capitalism? Since nobody wants to carry them because of their AO nature, and that AO games somehow drag their reputable honest family oriented business through the dirt and automatically turns "GameStop" into "that back room in the video store" children are already protected from them. heck i remember several times when games had to be toned down just so they would get an M rating instead. Video Games are already being censored and there isnt even a law.
Dr. Bradwart, Dark Lord of the Sith @ Oct 24th 2009 12:15PM
Sshh....capitalism is 'evil' at the moment. All the looters and moochers hate it. And they're the ones in charge, sadly.
Durr Hurr @ Oct 24th 2009 12:22PM
Have there been any studies to determine how old most gamers are? It's been about 30 years since the introduction of the first gaming systems, so I would wager that a large portion (if not a majority) of gamers are over the age of 18. Why do politicians and pundits still talk about video games as if only young children are playing them, and therefore all video game content must be made appropriate for young children?
I'm an adult and I want *MORE* violence, sex, nd adult themes in my video games goddamnit!
adamgreeney @ Oct 24th 2009 12:40PM
Exactly. Most gamers i deal with are well over 18, and since kids under 17 can't buy M games, the onus is on parents. Pay attention to what your kids buy, read reviews, read news articles, research your kids habits!
If parents took even a passing interest in their kids, we wouldn't have a problem. Let parents parent, and let those of us old enough and mature enough to make our own decisions do just that.
Lurkero @ Oct 24th 2009 12:55PM
There was a time when parents knew how to raise their kids properly...how the times go by.
OptimumEDGE @ Oct 24th 2009 1:02PM
I always find these LGJ posts a very interesting read. Thanks for the insightful view into the (poor) rationale that goes behind many of these attempts at video game regulations Mark.
MRLN (The Comment God) @ Oct 24th 2009 1:10PM
Somebody needs to walk up to these people, flick them on the forehead and say, "YOU. You are the problem, not the games. Teach your child that killing is wrong and should be kept in video games."
TRON.dll @ Oct 24th 2009 1:26PM
What I fail to understand is why everyone is so worried about children being exposed to heads being blown off fake, polygonal characters in a video game made up of a bunch of pixels, but yet NOBODY is worried about their children watching movies where REAL people in REAL life are getting their REAL heads get blown off in LIVE ACTION.
Also, random CAPITAL LETTERS added for DRAMATIC EFFECT.
E.J. @ Oct 24th 2009 4:02PM
Did you even read the article?
....
I thought not.
gst @ Oct 24th 2009 5:06PM
I'm really liking the vitamin analogy - first because the mental image of a kid crawling on the floor voraciously lapping up mouthfuls of Flinstones vitamins will make me chuckle sporadically for the rest of the day, and second, because it is a good one.
Especially if you are talking about them newfangled gummy vitamins - an aberration that steps over that line between "just palatable enough that you can stand to eat one" and "I know eating the whole bottle might be severely toxic, but who can resist gummies?" I'm sorry, this is a complete non sequitur... and yet I will still post it.
Great article.
BigD145 @ Oct 24th 2009 7:09PM
"ecogenerism"
Bullshit. End of story.
mastermaniac117 @ Oct 24th 2009 9:02PM
Wow. I've never seen the words "deviant" and "contagion" used in such a fundamentally abhorrent and disturbing manner.
Welcome to the United States of America - where divergent thought is a disease...to be cured. With lots and lots of drugs, if possible. Remember, the pill is yellow. That means it makes you happy! Talk to your doctor to see if metholodoxihappyplax is right for you.
BigD145 @ Oct 24th 2009 10:22PM
Embrace Jesus. Hallelujah.
BigD145 @ Oct 24th 2009 10:23PM
/sarcasm
mastermaniac117 @ Oct 24th 2009 9:02PM
Oh, and I'd like to congratulate Mr. Methenitis on an excellent, insightful article, as well as the people of Joystiq for providing a medium for its presentation.
jccalhoun @ Oct 25th 2009 11:22AM
The paper is based on a flawed premise. She writes, "The dominance of media influence on children is recognized by scholars across many disciplines including child development, communication theory, psychology, sociology, and the medical profession.1 Numerous studies demonstrate potential harm to
children from exposure to mass media and marketing sources.2"
If you look at the footnotes who does she cite as "evidence" of these claims? Craig Anderson and his pals Doug Gentile, Karen Dill who he has coauthored papers with and the AAP's "Joint Statement on the IMpact of Entertainment Violence on Children" which isn't a scientific paper and whose final paragraph states, "We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole, or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence." http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm Most of her subsequent citations of studies are from Gentile.
Her overview of the First Amendment is pretty good as she covers how other media are treated under the law but she omits what I see as the most legally similar medium: film. The media she does review are either those which are carried over the public airwaves such as broadcast television or are situations involving government funding such as public libraries and internet filtering. She also has a nice list of failed recent vidoegame violence laws.
Her argument is that violent media should be treated in a manner similar to toxic materials. Which is interesting but is based on that flawed premise that violent media has a negative effect on children.