Doug Lowenstein on Game Censorship 87
An anonymous reader writes "GamerDad has interviewed Doug Lowenstein of the ESA (Entertainment Software Association, the trade body for game publishers) about videogame violence and the future of gaming. From Doug's responses to the interview: 'Every time a new medium is introduced - whether it be movies, television or rock-and-roll - there will always be generations who aren't accustomed to it, don't understand it and, in a way, fear its success and popularity with younger generations. This is nothing new and I think that's what is happening with games today. It's no accident that most of the attacks on video games come from people over 50 whereas the core video game population is between 18 and 35. But as members of the video game generation become parents, teachers, journalists, cultural critics and policy makers, I think we'll see some of the criticism of games balanced by a better appreciation of how they enrich our lives and culture.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah its happened before and will again (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure when the printing press was invented, people freaked out just as bad at the thought of someone's opinion being widely available to anyone.
While you are all hooting and hollering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:5, Insightful)
It just takes one bad parent with GTA3 and a handgun to give the media food for a year, the chances of something NOT happening are too small.
It's not going to happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me the 'newer generation' getting into power is being influenced by the current people at the top.
Parents.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that what you will see in that once gamers become parents they will be horrified at how much time their children waste playing video games when they should be working to educate themselves.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:2, Insightful)
Enrichment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not going to happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is only a far-left point of view (Score:0, Insightful)
This is something repeated by the far-left over and over again, but it doesn't make it true. There are many ideas that were considered to be left-wing back then that are getting close to being mainstream now (increasing government control of health care, animal rights, etc). Environmentalism ideas that were only found on the left back then are now found in the left, center, and even part of the right.
In the 00's it is "Left---Center---Right" just like it was in the 1990s.
Skateboarding may not be a crime, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The skatepark arose as a solution to that problem. They still can't let hooligans loose on crowded sidewalks with those things, so they sponsor a place where they can be used to full effect. (More often than not, though, I think the skateparks are owned by private individuals, not local governments.)
The skatepark isn't an overall acceptance of the hobby, it's just a solution to an old problem: where can someone use a skateboard that won't knock people over?
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Insightful)
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Because it's a terrible, terrible idea. People already think that McDonalds are to blame for their obesity.
It's not the medium, is the content (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just plain stupid. It's not the medium that people are concerned with, it's the content of some games in this new medium. I am 29, and I still don't want my kids to see blood splattered all over their monitor when playing games. That just doesn't seem like a healthy thing for 14 year olds to be exposed to more than is neccessary. Even if they no it's not real, it de-sensitizes them to it and makes it more acceptible. If the only argument this guy can come up can be boiled down to "Old people suck!", then it's really not worth listening to.
This isn't a different medium (Score:3, Insightful)
These arguements are just attempts to change the subject and not deal with the matter at hand.
Re:Deady drug abuse (Score:1, Insightful)
There is a Frontline on POT where a significant number of DEA agents feel it is a waste of time enforcing this law.
It is quite silly to group all "drugs" into one group while Cigs and Booze destroy more lives then any "banned" drug.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that depends on what the crime is, from the parents' perspective. It is not a crime to let your 12 year old kid watch R-rated movies or even porn! (correct me on the porn part, if necessary) It isn't a crime to let your kid play violent video games, listen to rap music or watch graphic TV. So if a kid goes out and acts out GTA with the neighbor's kiddos, of what crime is the parent guilty? Being a bad parent? What if the parent was being good by letting their child experience a bit of freedom, and that child was being exposed at a neighbor's house? Do you now hold those people responsible?
I think that crimes (let's not get into IP and copyright arguments) are things that are generally, socially accepted faux pas. Very few people will debate that murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. are crimes against society and/or people's personal rights. But being a bad parent has such a broad definition and is subject to so many different viewpoints that I think it is a topic best avoided by the judicial system.
Now, if you want to make it an offense (like a misdemeanor) for providing rated content to an underage child, then you might be able to extrapolate a few laws if those exposed children commit crimes. Even still, you're now subject to a lot of interpretation in enforcing said laws. How would you go about proving that the child committed acts based on his/her exposure to the "illegal" content? Is the parent responsible? What about the retail establishment that may have sold the items to the parent with the child present?
And now we have a huge new argument that can go on forever. I think this is the reason that courts generally stay out of a parent's way unless a childs personal rights are expressly violated.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that it's never "just a videogame" that leads kids to commit acts of violence; there's always a lot more going on in their lives that leads up to the act. It's just so hard to convince people of that when the form of the crime explicitly imitates some game scenario or another, and seems to present a "simple" explanation.
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:3, Insightful)
The bloody splatter and such aren't unhealthy. The same with nudity and sex. The north american culture is unhealthy. Violence in context is very very repulsive. Violence in movies is glorified and made to be something it's not. In real life violence has consequences. People hurt, killing someone affects not only that person but everyone who knows him. If you have a violent scene in a game that has repercussions, that has emotional impact for some characters, then it's constructive. But the garbage hollywood and the game industry generates has no value. in GTA killing someone has very few consequences. It's problbly be a very diferent game if it did.
As for sex, that type of stuff should be taught. We should know how sex works and whats "normal". They should known porn is fake, and they should leanr what you do, why you do it and the consequences if you don't take precautions. The last few generations of parent shave been very negligent in teaching this and thats why the US has a very high rate of teen pregnancies compared to the rest of the western world.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
Herein lies the problem. It is not Just to punish someone for something they can not avoid. You say,
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday.
And I say, nobody can spend that much time.
I had loving parents, etc. I'm about as straigh-laced as they come... but in the end, that was my choice. There was many a thing that I did without my parent's knowlege. I could have easily made some serious crimes, like running drugs, one of them. I had the brains. I had the opportunity. And there's not a damn thing they could have done about it if I so chose.
You can make a case for negligence being actionable, because that is a direct action the parent takes. Negligence should be actionable independently of whether the kid ever does anything. But while a child is not a truly free actor yet, neither are they robotic automatons responding directly and solely to their parent's actions. You can not hold parents legally responsible for their children's most heinous crimes... all you can use it as is as just cause for investigating their parent's behavior, and since nobody can define "good parenting" very well anyhow...
In the end, one must be careful not to make the action of having children something that gives parents pause because of the significant possibility of totally random jail time based on the (in the final analysis) uncontrollable actions of their children.
Now, to any potential Slashbots smashing the reply button to angrily contradict me, make sure you understand what I'm saying. Parents are not devoid of responsibility, legal and moral. But neither is the child. It's equally wrong to wipe the responsibility away from either party. The correct answer requires analysis of both parties. No easy answers here!
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:2, Insightful)
And explain how Europe has low teen pregnancy and rampant sex init's media. They also have a very developed sex education system. Even canada has lower rates then America, we are taught about sex starting in grade 7.
In many states, there is legislation making it illegal to teach sex ed. In the same states teen pregnancy is higher then the national average. The states are freely available from states on the US.
We're seeing this happen already (Score:1, Insightful)
1) Sen. Joe Lieberman, the main person who started this, has toned down his rhetoric over the last couple of years. Lieberman has even said that the ESRB is the best rating system in all of entertainment.
2) California recently rejected two bills that would have regulated the industry.
3) Federal Courts have said that video games are protected by the First Amendment and have rejected appeals of lawsuits claiming that "violent content" in some games caused the Columbine and Paducah school shootings.
4) In fact, IMO, some of the main critics now have no credibility whatsoever. Jack Thompson has single-handedly made PROSTITUTION more noble than his own profession. Thompson has also damaged whatever miniscule credibility he had by lumping Wal-Mart into that lawsuit in Tennessee(even though Wal-Mart has a ID policy that's been in place since even before 9/11) and by filing a complaint with the FCC over a episode of Howard Stern's radio show two weeks ago.(Never mind the fact that Stern's no longer on in Florida thanks to Clear Channel.) Dave Grossman looks like Forrest Gump's more retarded evil twin who rode the short bus just to get his degree from a box of Froot Loops.
BearDogg-X
What I'm wondering is... (Score:3, Insightful)