Another Legislator Hops On Board The 'Violent Video Game' Bandwagon; Introduces Redundant Labeling Bill

from the Rated-M-for-'Moronic' dept

Recent events have returned video games (especially "violent" ones) back to their normal position as convenient grandstand/whipping boy (or girl, you sexist)/political football. Vice President Joe Biden recently met with representatives of the video game industry to inform them that they were just as responsible as the NRA for recent tragic events, and even if not, they'd be mentioned frequently in the same headlines. (The NRA also placed the blame on video games -- quite possibly the only issue on which it saw eye-to-eye with Biden.) New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently declared the M-rated "Call of Duty" games were not welcome in his home, quite possibly because he has four children and it's an M-rated game. And President Obama has called for a thorough study of any possible connection between gun violence and video games to be performed by the CDC.

So, it is with feigned shock that I pass on the news that a politician has introduced a bill aimed at violent video games -- one that looks to "implement" stuff we already have, only with Uncle Sam in charge.

In the wake of President Barack Obama's announcement that the CDC would study the effects of violent video games and other media, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) has introduced bill H.R. 287, which would "require ratings label on video games" and "prohibit the sales and rentals of adult-rated video games to minors."

Ratings labels, eh? You mean like these handy things that have been slapped all over video games for the past 19 years?

Oh, and "prohibit the sales and rentals of adult-rated [?] video games to minors?" You mean the sort of thing that nearly every respectable retailer has been voluntarily doing for nearly as long?

I understand that politicians are generally allergic to terms like "voluntary" and "self-regulating" and are more partial to terms like "government oversight" and "mandatory" and "nanny state," especially when the prevailing winds favor doing a bit of "something" in response to tragedy. But to force a redundant system into use in order to enforce a standards system that has worked well for years is not only a self-serving, needless expansion of government power, it's just plain stupid.

Matheson's bill would make it mandatory for all games available for sale or rent to sport a rating label, something that nearly every commercially distributed game already features. (Many indie games distributed exclusively via download do not carry these labels, as they are rarely submitted to the ESRB.) Strangely, Matheson's bill relies on the ESRB to provide the rating, rather than turn it over to another agency.

(a) Conduct Prohibited- It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

It also requires retailers to post rating information, as supplied by the ESRB. Again, most retailers already do this voluntarily. This goes beyond redundant and into some bizarre coattail-riding territory in which the government piggybacks its agenda onto an existing system and, presumably, rewards itself with raises and high-fives shortly thereafter.

The only difference between what exists now and Matheson's "bold" "vision" for the future is the weight of government enforcement.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent--

(1) any video game containing a content rating of ‘Adults Only’ (as determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board) to any person under the age of 18; or

(2) any video game containing a content rating of ‘Mature’ (as determined by such Board) to any person under the age of 17.

Matheson turns this enforcement over to the Federal Trade Commission, adding an "up to $5,000" fine to any violations. Once again, the question is why? All this does is add a layer of unneeded regulation and fines to a system that a majority of game buyers and sellers feel is working just fine. This is just Matheson turning a system from voluntary to mandatory just so he can appear "tough on video games," which is a terrible plank for any platform.

On the upside (for us -- not so much for Rep. Jim Matheson), legislation tracking site, govtrack.us, currently gives the bill (as it stands) a 3% chance of getting past committee and only a 1% chance of being enacted. Part of this is due to the fact that many other states have tried (and failed) to enact government regulation of video games, something the Supreme Court declared violated the First Amendment. Another factor is the general inactivity level of our representatives (often considered "ideal" by small government types) which has resulted in only 11% of bills making it past committee and only 2% into actual law.

For now, it's more of the same old video game scapegoating, with this effort being surprisingly lazy in its approach. It's cyclical and repetitive, like EA's release schedule -- comforting in its familiarity and unsurprising in its lack of imagination.

Filed Under: free speech, jim matheson, labeling, video games, violent video games

Study Links Violent Video Games And The 'Macbeth Effect'

from the is-this-a-study-i-see-before-me? dept

Normally when we cover studies (or lack there of) linking violence and video games, it's to show the rather uninformed way pundits and politicians go about pretending there's an established causal link where one has not yet been proven. Whether it's the press taking the low road with sensationalized headlines about Anders Breivik, or politicians attempting to get ever more inflatted warning labels on games, or simple random accusations by judges in the face of evidence to the contrary. The theme in these types of stories is clear and ridiculously simple: if the average person plays violent games, they're going to desensitize that average person and cause them to commit non-average atrocities.

So it's a bit interesting to see a study on violent video games produce some more nuanced results, such as a recent study from the University of Luxembourg that showed what researchers are referring to as "the Macbeth Effect" in the average gamer:

The researchers had 76 people play violent video games for 15 minutes, after which they were told to select gift items for others. Those who were "inexperienced" with violent video games were more likely to select "hygienic products" like shower gel, deodorant, and toothpaste than those who played violent video games on a regular basis

"The need to cleanse to keep moral purity intact, the 'Macbeth effect,' is a psychological phenomenon in which a person attempts to purify oneself in order to cope with feelings of moral distress," said lead researcher Dr. Andre Melzer. "We find that the Macbeth effect can result from playing violent videogames, especially when the game involves violence against humans."

The reference is from Shakespear's Macbeth, in which Lady Macbeth obsessively washes her hands after participating in a murder plot. And, yes, I know that some of you will say that this effect primarily showed up in those that were "inexperienced with violent video games", but that's the whole point. Those that are inexperienced with violent games are so because they aren't the kind of people those games appeal to. The games themselves aren't corrupting the minds of these people, nor are they likely corrupting the minds of those that actually seek them out. There are simply some people who like those kinds of games and some who don't.

Filed Under: macbeth effect, moral distress, video games, violent video games

California Politician Who Wrote Unconstitutional Anti-Video Game Law Plans To Try Again With New Law

from the and-waste-more-taxpayer-money dept

With the Supreme Court agreeing with every other court (well over a dozen of them) ruling that government attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children is a First Amendment violation, it appears that the politician who came up with California's law isn't about to give up. State Senator Leland Yee held a press conference, in which he claimed that it was an example of the Court siding with "corporate America" over "our children." Yeah, he pulled out the "but think of the children" line that only desperate politicians use.

"It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

Except... that's wrong. Nothing in the ruling has any impact, whatsoever, on the rights of parents. Why would Senator Yee make a statement that is clearly dishonest? The ruling was over the rights of children. Parents still have the same rights they had before. Parents are still able to raise their kids in the same way they did before. There is nothing, whatsoever, in the ruling that limits or changes how a parent can raise their kid. Furthermore, as pointed out over and over again (and actively denied by Senator Yee), there is no evidence that violent video games have any impact on "the well-being" of kids. Senator Yee is pandering to a public by misstating what the research says.

Even worse, it appears he wants to waste more California taxpayer money by going through this whole charade all over again. Yes, that's right, he's indicated that he wants to try again with a new law. Apparently, he has his staff "poring through the opinions to see where we can create a pathway for a successful bill that could withstand a challenge." In other words, more California taxpayer money is going to be spent going through another round of legal challenges.

Is it really that hard for him to understand that he's wasting time and money here? This ruling does not restrict parents. The research has failed to show any causal relationship, and all indications are that the "well-being" of children is not at all harmed by such video games. Why bother trying to go through all of this again over a fantasy?

Filed Under: california, first amendment, free speech, leland yee, violent video games

Supreme Court Says Anti-Violent Video Game Law Violates The First Amendment

from the okay,-is-this-settled-now? dept

Finally. For years now, various states have tried to put in place anti-violent video game laws. Every time they do so, the laws are challenged in court and every single time they're found to be First Amendment violations. None of these cases went to the Supreme Court, however, until last year, when (then) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (star of tons of violent movies) decided to waste a lot of money that California doesn't have, in order to appeal lower court rulings, at both the district and appeals court levels, that found California's anti-violent video game law unconstitutional.

So, finally, the Supreme Court has weighed in... and it has agreed with every other court on this matter and found such laws to be unconstitutional restrictions on expression and free speech (pdf). The ruling, written by Justice Scalia, is long, but notes that while the Court has allowed blocking of obscene speech, that's a limited category, and violence is not the same thing as obscenity. It also notes that children, contrary to the opinion of some, do enjoy First Amendment protections as well, and there aren't special rules for them. Quoting an earlier case (Erznoznik), Scalia notes: "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them."

The majority clearly paid attention to the briefs in the case, concerning the long history of children being exposed to violence:

California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers "till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy." The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id., at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id., at 54.

High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer's Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake. The Odyssey of Homer, Book IX, p. 125 (S. Butcher & A. Lang transls.1909) ("Even so did we seize the fiery-pointed brand and whirled it round in his eye, and the blood flowed about the heated bar. And the breath of the flame singed his eyelids and brows all about, as the ball of the eye burnt away, and the roots thereof crackled in the flame"). In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they be skewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp.187–189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed.1982). And Golding’s Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island.

The court goes on to note violence in all sorts of other media that children experience. It then dismisses the claim that video games are somehow "different" because they're interactive, pointing to things like "choose-your-own-adventure" stories. Scalia also takes direct aim at Justice Alito (who concurs, but disagrees with the reasoning) for highlighting how "disgusting" some violent video games are, noting:

JUSTICE ALITO recounts all these disgusting video games in order to disgust us -- but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.

Of course, all of this makes me wonder why obscenity gets a special exception to the First Amendment. Reading through the ruling, it seems to keep saying that obscenity is a special classification of speech, but refuses to explain why it's different. If anything, this ruling suggests that this court can't really answer that question if it came up today. Obscenity is just different because it is.

The court also rejects the (widely disputed) evidence by anti-violent video game professor Craig Anderson, by noting (as many of us have) that the research does not show what many of Anderson's supporters insist it does show. That is, nowhere in the research is it proven that violent video games cause kids to act more aggressively. At best, the research shows a correlation, and other evidence suggests that other factors may be leading to the aggression, rather than the video games. Thankfully, it looks like Anderson's totally ridiculous claim that because the researchers who signed his brief in this case had more papers published, it meant their research was more credible, gets completely ignored by the court.

The other opinions are interesting, if not particularly compelling. Justice Alito, as noted, agrees with the final ruling, but does seem really worried that violent video games just might be evil. Justice Thomas dissented, and his basic argument is that parents can restrict the free speech rights of minors. That's true, to some extent... but that power is not universal, and that has nothing to do with the government restricting such rights, whether or not parents wish it to be restricted. Also, the opinion reads rather... old-fashioned, with him calling back to Puritanical days when fathers had "absolute powers" and children were considered "innately sinful." He admits that we've gotten past that, but that doesn't mean laws that view the world in that manner shouldn't be allowed. Justice Breyer also dissents, and seems to also be persuaded that violent video games are evil, and thus says that the law is permissible in an effort to "protect the children."

All in all, though, another strong First Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court. It still strikes me that this court struggles with the idea that obscenity has a special exception to the First Amendment, which also makes me wonder how it will deal with the next round of copyright/First Amendment cases that it will be facing, starting with Golan. I fear, given the court's past discussions on copyright, that while it seems to have a strong First Amendment view towards most things, that it will ignore the First Amendment when it comes to copyright issues. Hopefully not, but it does feel like there's significant cognitive dissonance going on when it comes to the intersection of copyright law and the First Amendment.

Filed Under: california, first amendment, free speech, supreme court, violent video games

Switzerland So Neutral It Won't Even Let In Violent Video Games

from the overdoing-it-a-bit dept

An anonymous reader sends in word that Switzerland appears to be following in the footsteps of Venezuela by getting close to banning all violent video games in the country (yes, even for adults). It's not quite there yet -- as the Swiss National Council has basically just given itself the right to put in place such a ban, but is still debating the actual extent of the ban. However, it appears that many expect all video games rated at a mature or adult level will likely be banned. I'm curious why none of the countries that ban such video games are also willing to ban R-rated movies as well.

Filed Under: switzerland, violent video games

Play Violent Video Game In Venezuela... And Face Jailtime

from the that-seems-productive dept

Back at the end of last year, we wrote about how Venezuela has passed an anti-violent video game law, claiming that was what was causing violence in the country. Our post quoted someone in Venezuela explaining just how ridiculous this was. Well, now Slashdot points us to the news that Venezuela has officially begun enforcing the law, and it doesn't just ban the import, production or sale of such games -- as we'd heard originally -- but also the use. And, if you're caught doing any of those things, you can get two to five years in jail. Which do you think is likely to make someone more violent? Playing Modern Warfare 2 at home, or being sent to jail for two years?

Filed Under: jail time, venezuela, violent video games

Buddhist Leader Says Playing Video Games Lets Out Aggression; Better Method Than Meditation

from the no-moral-panic-here dept

While other religious and political leaders around the world are busy creating moral panics around violent video games, it appears that one Buddhist leader feels quite differently about them. The third ranking Buddhist, Ogyen Trinley Dorje (and, according to the article, the only Buddhist leader recognized by China, Tibet and India), apparently sees video games as therapeutic and a way to let out aggression:

Well, I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise.

So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards.

The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head.

In response, the interviewer asks "shouldn't meditation take care of that?" to which he replies: "No, video games are just a skillful method." So, kids, next time some politician says that violent video games are bad, why not point out that one of the most peaceful men in the world uses them to let out some aggression in ways that meditation cannot provide.

Filed Under: aggression, buddhism, ogyen trinley dorje, video games, violent video games

Evidence Lacking On Any Connection Between Video Game Violence And Real Violence

from the so-says-the-research dept

Two professors have taken the time to go through all of the various research over the years that has tried to connect violent video games to actual violence, and discovered many problems with it. They found that research that concludes some sort of connection between the two seems to not use any recognized measure of aggression (allowing for substantial fudging), and that the media attention seems to lead more researchers to study the subject and (perhaps subconsciously) push them towards sensationalizing their findings. Hurray for technopanics. Among the findings:

• In the last 10 years, video games studies have been overwhelmingly popular compared to studies on other media.
• Less than half of studies (41%) used well validated aggression measures.
• Poorly standardized and unreliable measures of aggression tended to produce the highest effects, possibly because their unstandardized format allows researchers to pick and choose from a range of possible outcomes.
• The closer aggression measures got to actual violent behavior, the weaker the effects seen.
• Experimental studies produced much higher effects than correlational or longitudinal studies. As experimental studies were most likely to use aggression measures of poor quality, this may be the reason why.
• There was no evidence that video games produce higher effects than other media, despite their interactive nature.
• Overall, effects were negligible, and we conclude that media violence generally has little demonstrable effect on aggressive behavior.

Of course, that won't stop lawyers and politicians from grandstanding on the issue...

Filed Under: research, violent video games

NZ Censor Threatens To Jail Parents Who Buy Violent Video Games For Kids

from the shock-value dept

Tony Eaton points us to the rather disturbing news that New Zealand's "chief censor" (quite a title, there...), Bill Hastings, is interested in prosecuting parents who have bought their kids violent video games. Apparently parenting is no longer for parents, but for Bill Hastings to determine what is, and what is not appropriate:

"There would certainly be some shock value to prosecuting a parent who gives their under-18 child access to a restricted game. It would send out a message that the enforcement agency means business."

Based on the law, parents prosecuted could face $10,000 fines or be put in jail for three months. Which do you think would do more harm to a child? Playing GTA or having their parent dragged through a show trial, for "shock value," and dumped in jail for three months?

Filed Under: censor, jail, new zealand, parents, violent video games

Sony Considers Lawsuit Over Its Controller Being Used In Anti-Video Game Ad

from the probably-not-the-best-idea dept

Steve points us to a story in the UK about how Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is considering taking legal action against the folks behind an anti-video game advertisement because a photo in the ad includes a boy holding what appears to be a Playstation controller. The whole thing seems pretty silly. The anti-video game ad is pretty ridiculous itself, but Sony overreacting to it seems even worse. First of all, other than hardcore gamers, who's even going to notice that it's a PlayStation controller? Instead of suing and drawing more attention, Sony might want to just focus on reasons why the ad is misleading and that video gaming doesn't lead to "cancer, diabetes, and heart disease." Suing over the use of the controller just makes it look like they have something to hide.

Filed Under: lawsuits, streisand effect, trademark, video games, violent video games
Companies: sony