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.'"
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
If that bad parent knew that they would be the one sent to jail if Little Johnny goes ape-shit with a gun... maybe that one bad parent would make a better effort?
Of course it wouldn't be automatic, but a trial for criminal negligence and complicity.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Re:While you are all hooting and hollering... (Score:1, Interesting)
Interactive neural webs?
Downloadable skill sets?
Hell, with the ways thiings are currently going, I wouldnt be suprised if my kids favorite activity is going to be sitting around the campfire, telling stories of the "old world," where food was abundant, yet unhealthy.. and millions of people lived like kings, but at the same time were trapped in their own prisons.
*cough*
Anyways, speculation on the "next" form of entertainment?
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Yes, and it's generally accepted that once a person reaches adulthood, he or she *is* responsible for his or her actions. If a parent is held responsible when little Johhny breaks the windshield of the neighbors' car, why should they *not* be responsible when little Johhny breaks the legs of the neighbors' kid? As long as a child is a child, and you are his parent or guardian, you are responsible for what that child does.
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. Adults should be responsible for their own actions, and parents should be responsible for their children.
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.
Not the same thing, and a very disingenuous (or stupid) argument. Why is it a terrible idea? Because it would keep children out of prison who should be locked up, or because it would force parents to get a lot more involved in their childrens' lives or risk jail when they do soething horribly bad?
People think McDonalds is to blame for their obesity for the same reason that they think video games, TV, and movies are to blame for their kids' bad behavior...they refuse to accept personal responsibility for negative outcomes. I'm not sure why you're trying to stand that on its ear, but it was a valiant attempt. Eat at McDonalds 5 days a week: get fat. Let the media raise your kids: they em grow up with no sense of right and wrong. Be negligent enough in raising your child that he/she maliciously kills/maims/hurts someone: face the music.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Do the odds change in any significant way if you only remove GTA3 from the equation though? Anyone influenced to violence by a video game already has enough issues that making games a scapegoat isn't going to help anybody.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
No I want to put parents on trial for complicity and negligence on a case by case basis. That way your neighbor analogy and most minor offenses, mistakes that ALL parents make, and factors beyond their control would not implicate them in a crime.
I want to try them before a jury of their peers to decide if lack of parental involvement or damaging involvement contributed significantly to the childs actions.
It IS a difficult line to walk. I'm not even too sure the benefits would outway the problems that arise with such a "solution". But it might be worth trying.
Re:Frontline (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh-huh. So ask high school (or any other under-21 person) which is easier for them to get: weed or beer?
making it legal allows the government to better control it. making it illegal just creates a thriving black market.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I do hate GTA. I find it repetative and not at all fun. I mention that so I don't come across as a rabid GTA fanboy.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget asking whether it is a crime. Ask, "If a child does something, does Justice demand that a parent be punished?"
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.
And I disagree. While it takes a great deal of effort to raise a child and to be able to trust them to make good decisions (to be *reasonably* sure, I said), it's not only very possible, it's done every day by many parents.
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...
Hmm...here I partially agree with you. True, older kids are not completely under their parents' control, but that doesn't mean that the kid with the crack business, or with the guns in his room is the only person responsible. It's a scary thought for parents, and that's part of the reason we want no part of it. How do we control our kids who are so much more edgy/dangerous/advanced than we were at their age? How do we keep them from doing terrible things?
To have that thought probably means that you aren't devoting as much time to your kids as you should. Not definitely, but probably. Of course, NOT having that thought doesn't mean that you're doing great, and needn't worry about it. You cannot hold parents SOLELY responsible for their childrens' most heinous crimes, but except in cases of mental instability in the kid, the parent definitely shares some of the blame, and even then, sometimes the parent is the *reason* for the mental instability. I'd define good parenting as an overall result, not a set of particular skills...some kids need more guidance than others, and some parents may need to put in overtime with their kids.
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.
Except that it wouldn't be random. Juries are made up of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, and they're going to understand that Mr. Smith spent weekends out camping with Johnny, and played catch with him, and kissed him goodnight, and told him that he shouldn't break people's lefs, but Johhny did it any way. In the end, one must be careful, I agree, and any law along these lines would have to be carefully crafted to avoid unwarranted sent
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:4, Interesting)
My point (and Lowenstein's, I think) is that the average videogame doesn't really have that much in the way of graphic violence. The media tends to take one or two examples and blow them out of proportion, because it is easier to incite people against what they don't understand (currently videogames). The violence that does exist just isn't nearly as bad as the few extreme examples.
It's not old people suck, it's older people don't understand younger people and always think they are going down some wrong path because they don't think it's the same path they took. This is true for every generation, and perhaps always will be.