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)
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.
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: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.
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:2)
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
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: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
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: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 child
True, however ... (Score:1)
If your kid does do that, you as a parent should be held responsible, because you failed to bring up your child in such a way that he would understand that.
Of course, a line needs to be drawn at some age, where it is assumed a kid can think for himself. But before that, it is a respons
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:2)
-Vic
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:2)
A year? More like five years, ten if the game is that big of a hit (think Doom). Watch, in another 10-15 years, someone will write a book about GTA3 and call it 'The Second Mortal Kombat' and restart the whole argument.
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:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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:I.E. GTA (Score:2)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:2)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:1)
Re:I.E. GTA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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:Skateboarding may not be a crime, but... (Score:1)
Skate parks weren't a solution because if it was, they would have been common a long time before t
Re:yeah its happened before and will again (Score:1)
Yeah.... that's one that never ceased to baffle the fuck out of me. My friends and I used to skate everywhere and all the time. It was our primary way of getting around town. It was our way of getting exercise (And at the hight of our skating days, we really were in EXCELLENT shape.). It was a good way of socializing. And it was an avenue for some friendly competition. It was good, c
Re:yeah its happened before and will again (Score:1)
It's Edmonton Albert, in Canada. Where the people are nice, the girls are horney(odd statistic, we represent the largest concentration of chat hosts in north america for the porn cam girls per capita), and the cost of living low.
Re:yeah its happened before and will again (Score:1)
I have moved, actually. Many times. The events described took place years ago, when I was still a teenager.
Nowadays, I live in San Francisco; so skating is not much of an option. While I'd, no doubt, get quite the good workout going UP the hills here; going DOWN those beasts on my 'blades would be near-suicidal.
cya,
john
Oh yeah... (Score:1)
Skate parks are completely, utterly, useless, if part of your reason for skating is to get from point $a to point $b; which was more than a small part of the reason for us.
cya,
john
While you are all hooting and hollering... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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.
A bit disturbing (Score:2)
70's: Left---Center---Right
90's: -------Left-----Center-----Right
What used to be considered middle of the road in the 70's is today considered Liberal Left.
How did THAT happen??
Re:A bit disturbing (Score:1)
50s: left----center------right*
60s: left--center--------right*
*During this time heavy religious influence took over the Republican Party in many places in america through the abuse of quorums (sp?) and really pushed out the Liberal Republicans (Yes, there WERE Liberal Republicans). Also the 2 dimensions of political parties is wrong anyway, it's more like 4, for a basic understanding.
I personally find the smaller newer parties like Civil Libertarians and Green to be Essential
Re:It's not going to happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not going to happen... (Score:1)
I know of no one that pot has killed.
Re:Deady drug abuse (Score:2)
Bwahahahah. Good one. No, I don't have a point, I just wanted to laugh at that, and I have karma to burn
"when you lose small mind you free your life"
Re:Deady drug abuse (Score:1)
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: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:Frontline (Score:1)
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.
Ed-j00-m'cation? (Score:2)
I won't pretend that games are a replacement for schooling, but they're FAR from being completely "mindless", as so many critics claim. Not everything you need to know about the world can be found in a text book.
Re:Ed-j00-m'cation? (Score:2)
Maybe not COMPLETELY mindless, but the difference is small enough to be inconsequential.
Not everything you need to know about the world can be found in a text book.
The only thing that you can't get from a textbook is experience applying the knowledge therein.
Enrichment (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For bonus points (Score:1)
Marge: Thank you, Doctor. Whenever the wind whistles through the leaves, I'll think of your name: Lowenstein... Lowenstein...
Dr. Zweig: My name is Zweig.
Marge: [whispers] Lowensein...
Simpsons philistines.
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.
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
That's debatable.
As for sex, that type of stuff should be taught. We should know how sex works and whats "normal". ... 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.
I disagree. Students get this information in high school and/or junior high. I think the real problem (both with te
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:2)
Better check your school. A lot of them now are teaching boys and girls that they have evil monsters between their legs that should never be touched or shown to anyone else.
Or whatever other lies the religious right wants them to teach this year, hoping that by keeping people stupid, they'll somehow teach them to overcome their natural reproductive urges.
Source? (Score:1)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:2)
Not really. All I've seen is that the schools are only now teaching the students honestly about sex - and that is even wihtin a Catholic school. The same Catholic school provided courses on personal morals and world religions after providing the standard religion courses up to Grade 10 or so (a time where faith in religion sometimes
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:2)
Condoms are made with holes that allow AIDS to pass through [guardian.co.uk]. As if the original claim wasn't bad enough, read to the bottom and note that there is (admittedly hearsay) claims that people are being told that condoms are laced with AIDS in the first place.
Or, if you want a little closer to home, you can see what people think about Bush's abstinence-only sex ed drive:
How we look and act abroad [guardian.co.uk]
Admittedly Fox News, but opens w [foxnews.com]
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 fre
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:2)
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:1)
I'd really rather let children see a sex scene(which they will eventually do, just not too soon) then see a violent act(which I hope to god they do not do).
Americans heavily protect their children from every thign and it does absolutly nothing to make them better people or more responsible people. Europeans expose their children
Re:It's not the medium, is the content (Score:3, Funny)
[Gets out calculator] Also keep them away from whatever it was that got you into procreating at 15.
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.
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.
Testimony of Douglas Lowenstein (Score:2)
he's made good comments
Re:Eh? (Score:1)
Its all a means to entertain ourselves, divert our attention from the stresses of life.
Better Alter-Media Examples (Score:2)
Not to say they don't still get flak, but it's not the news media stopper it once was mainly because they have been around awhile. Yes, partially because they've been replaced, but as the same types who use them play video games it would be zero effort to lump t
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 t
What I'm wondering is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I'm wondering is... (Score:2)
Crispin