How do we reach into homes where games have become a substitute for parenting? You might say that this is not your responsibility, but if you say that I think that is the response of a nascent industry.

I hardly think it's entirely fair to blame the games industry for poor parenting decisions.

I agree that the industry needs to accept a certain amount of responsibility, but there's only so much they can do - beyond the point of sale, it's really out of the industry's sphere of influence. Even if they build in parental controls and content restriction, it's up to a parent to implement it.

He kind of has a point there. It is *supposed* to be up to the parents to look after their kids, but reality rarely lives up to the ideal. The companies may be able to stand up and say that it's "not their problem," but many parents are passing the buck and making it their problem.

Not that I want to link gaming with actual dangerous activities, but it's the parents' job to make sure their kids aren't smoking, yet tobacco companies have to try to ensure that their adverts don't reach or don't appeal to minors. Looking out for kids who shouldn't be playing their games anyway might not be a legal or strictly moral requirement, but it couldn't hurt the industry's image to be seen to care a little more rather than pointing to the BBFC rating labels and seeing no evil, hearing no evil, speaking no evil.

Happy Run-On Sentence Day, by the way.

The games industry owes MOST of its bad rep to LYING (lieing?) politicians and ambulance-chasers. However, most clueless parents don't know they are being lied to, and precieve these people as do-gooders protecting "the children." For the industry to take these liars to task for their slander/libel, it would make them look like an "evil industry attacking those who would defend teh children."

Catch 22

As strange as it sounds, when I hear “You need to take up a place in the establishment and there are huge benefits to be had in doing so” I seem to be understanding that to mean "Give your politicians campaign donations and we'll leave you alone".

No. The game industry is doing just fine right now and if they're going to be wasting money on politics I'd much rather they fight crooked laws and frivilous lawsuits than give politicians that money so they'll go away. Anything else is simple extortion.

I understand that the game industry is the new kid on the block but that doesn't beholden them to politicians. Just because they've earned money doesn't mean that magically they should be giving a piece of that to their local representatives so that they may continue to do so without being fettered by maliciously written laws and ridiculous men.

Me, I stand behind the ESRB and the industry. Yeah, they could be doing things a little better (though not by much!) but they can't do better just by "[taking] up a place in the establishment." They haven't fought this many legal battles so that they could get fed up with stupid politicians, and with the number of precidents they've been setting I can't see them wanting to stop.

While I know i'll get a bap response from this, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

You are all wrong.

We have been playing nice nice with these Assholes to long. The time for talk and discussion was over the momment they began to outright lie to the public.

I say, enough it enough. I don't give a damn what kind of rep the industy would get. Public opinion is meaningless in a court of law, if that wasn't true, then the industry would have lost all those case that it has won.

No ,i say, enough playing nice nice, enough trying to be friends. I say the Industry lays down 3 simple rules.

1. TO the Media. You LIE, WE BANKRUPT YOU!

2. To the politicans: You lie, We break your political exsistance in court.

3. To the Jack Thompsons of the world: You like, we'll have you in court for the rest of your natural life, and we'll make sure you pay up every cent you ever make.

Sure, it may not be nice, but it would sure the hell stop the lies and deciet. WHen the lies and deciet end, then, the industry can start playing nice again. Not before.

So, hate me if you like for speaking out, but the fact is, if the industry had a pair to begin with, and wasn't playing Defense all the time, this wouldn't be a problem.

I say, it's time to kick ass and take names. We take your name, be you media, politicans, or critic, and then we kick your ass in court.

Thats the attitude the industry should have.

Please note, this is not a directed attack on anyone, jack thompson included, but a recommended course of action that should be undertaken by the industry.

Yuki, how much money do you think the industry has? Jesus, can you imagine the ESRB trying to take on FOX to "bankrupt" them, as you put it?

You say the industry needs to grow a pair? You need to grow a brain if you think endless litigation is going to solve this. We cannot bully soccer moms into submission - they invented that tactic.

Ya know, you compare "The Jungle" with the currest state of the Video Game industry, they do very well image wise compared to other young industries.

Words cannot express how disgusted I am right now. Hooray for nanny statism and the death of personal/parental responsibility! :|

@Gamer81:

Thanks for the hookup, just wrote to commend her!

Random U.S.A Poster Tells Entire United Kingdom to go **** itself.
Well actually just that one guy, but I've needed to get that out of my system for a while. And all of Europe actually... whitey.

I know you won't believe me... but it's again just sort of the afterglow of being the world's official fire hydrant.

Anyway, pay attention to European policy on media violence and you'll begin to see why the first amendment really does make a difference in the game industry. Americans trade exposure to violence for freedom, and there's a good reason Europe is so peacefull.

@Michael James Nock
Old topic, but a reasonable response to statements that could have understandably been met with a flame happens to be something that creates respect. The United States happens to be one of the most dangerous places to live, bar none. The murder rate in New York city was until recently the highest in the "world", including third world nations. Every race and tribe in the world makes its home in the US and while Mexican immigrants may consider it the difference between heaven and hell, their children find themselves poor and for many generations trapped in the middle class. Our constitution supports native terrorism (or militia) because our government was founded on paranoia and revolution. And for the record, right to bear arms exists for no other purpose but to arm these militias with firepower. The Civil War itself was constitutional, as were the actions of violent war protestors, pro communist terrorism and the actions of Timothy Macveigh. Free speech results in deadly riots, horrifying murders as well as the formation of hate driven sub elements that cause both of those. Americans pay for their rights in blood. Tens of Millions of lives have been lost because of what we call freedom. Many people are murdered every day all over the country and unless explosives are involved, it's just another day in paradise for both the aware and unaware of the deaths. New York is no longer the murder capitol of the world because of its gun ban, an unconstitutional law by the way. Violence in some parts of the major cities is comparable to Iraq.

As horrifying as that all sounds, I'd love to see the affect of it on an invading country. In America, everyone is armed, trained and capable of pulling the trigger when it's necessary. I dare even China to step into the States.

So the difference between the US and the UK is actually very distinct. The vast majority of Americans would never admit to most of this, but you'd be surprised how far the phrase "non participation" stretches here. Games are violent, but the truth is, it doesn't matter if they inspire real life violence... we're perfectly capable of all that on our own. People like Jack Thompson will never succeed in actually censoring content, the first amendment doesn't really care about logic anyway, just principle. While ten year olds may someday not be legally able to play manhunt (worst-case scenario) those games will always be available.

So the reason the United Kingdom doesn't have our death rate is a collage of things. And while culture is imported, exposure violence is less about media and more about having your apartment raked with a fully automatic weapon by a gang-member who just happened to get the wrong house.

Now what did we learn about American vs. European game legislation from all of this?

@Sabub
While waiting to see if my huge post debunking your patently false statement about how dangerous the US is (I'll repost it if it got eaten), I'll move on to some of your other statements.

First, if you can't distinguish between a militia (that is, an armed body of citizens organized of their own accord for collective defense of their homes and property) and terrorists (an armed body that may or may not consist of citizens that commits acts of aggression against innocent/civilian targets in order to create fear and/or advance a radical political or ideological agenda), then you need to go back to PoliSci 101. Calling the idea of private ownership of firearms "native terrorism" is ignorant at -best-, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just weren't thinking carefully about what you said.

To give you a better understanding of what "The Militia" is as envisioned by the founding fathers (although not all of them. John Adams was one Federalist who opposed the Second Amendment and there were others. That's one of the reasons why the language seems a bit confused.)

"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -George Mason

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -Melancton Smith

Tench Coxe is the source of some of my personal favorite quotations (after Jefferson). He was one of the first representatives from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, and said:

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them."

And more eloquently:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

@Sabub
You may not have -knowingly- made false statements, but you did make them. Not only did you make them, you continue to make them. To go down the line:

"the majority of US citizens do in fact dwell in large cities,"

Not true. Add up the ten largest cities in the US and you have 8% of the population. Add up the ten largest metroplitan areas and you still only have 26% of the population. In other words, the majority of US citizens live in the smaller cities and towns and rural areas that you're so ready to discount. In reality, it's the cities like New York, DC, Detroit, and LA that are the exceptions to the rule. So if anything, it's the big cities that are "messing with the overall statistics", if by "messing with" you mean "aren't representative of the Average American's environment. I'm not sure where you got the idea that most Americans live in big cities, but it's simply not true.

"Violent crime is a drop in the bucket, a murder… is a swimming pool."

First off, let's remember your initial claim: "The United States happens to be one of the most dangerous places to live". -Dangerous-, as in "likely to cause physical injury". In the context of your claim violent crime is -definately- applicable. And in fact when murders are only 1% of US violent crime and 0.1% of UK violent crime it's an -obscene- distortion to toss that out as "a drop in the bucket". Remember that the other 99 or 99.9% includes all the people beaten to within an inch of their lives. Everyone who was shot and lived. All the rape victims. When you're talking about "danger", saying that those risks don't count is simply ridiculous.

"nationwide statistics for the United States are not useful in determining the correct statistics"

Well, aside from the fact that this statement is incoherent, it's also false. See first point above.

"New York as I mentioned before is no longer holding that title due to gun control laws."

It seems to be time for a history lesson. First, New York City was called the Murder Capitol of the US (and sometimes the world) for the -number- of murders committed there, not the murder -rate-. It -still- has the most murders total in the US, in fact. On to the time period: New York had that label at the peak of a national surge in the violent crime rate (check the BJS page I cited above and look up articles for 1985 to 1991-93). Since then the national violent crime rate (and the homicide rate along with it) has decreased steadily. In other words, -most- of the increase and decrease of crime in New York was simply a reflection of national trends. The parts that weren't attributable to the national trend were the result of several factors: the hiring of 5,000 new police officers, policies dramatically increasing police presence in troubled areas combined with "zero tolerance" policies that led to a huge increase in searches and arrests of repeat offenders, the use of the CompStat system (which tracked crime statistics by precinct and held individual chains of command directly responsible for what went on on their beat), and clearing a 50,000 warrant backlog in the justice system. By contrast, during that time period the only major change to New York gun control was a state version of the Assault Weapons Ban (a law that was allowed to expire at the federal level in large part because it accomplished absolutely nothing). The more famous federal Brady Bill was passed in '94...two years AFTER the beginning of the downward trend in crime in NYC and one year after the start of all the aggressive policing measures I mentioned above. In other words, your assertion that the decrease in the crime rate was due to gun control is simply not true. Another false statement.

Your original words on the subject of militias were "Our constitution supports native terrorism (or militia)". The only militia our constitution supports is the militia mentioned in the second amendment: The whole of the American people, armed and ready to defend themselves and their country. Now you're backpedaling from that statement to "bad militias". But even then there's no "metaphorical" connection. If groups like the Montana Freemen or the Michigan Militia had actually perpetrated acts of violence against civilians in order to change government policy, or tried to overthrow the government without popular support then they would be terrorists in a very literal, factual sense. But they didn't. Those famous groups were shut down by the government for things as simple and petty as not paying their taxes. So the "bad guy militias" aren't terrorists in any sense of the word. What about the people who have commited acts of terrorism in the US? McVeigh (Ok City), Rudolph (Atlantic Olympics), et al. Well, those gentlemen mad-bombers used bombs, not guns. In other words, they were not supported in any way by the constitution. So no matter -which- way you take your statement about the constitution and terrorism, it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

As for self-defense, individual security is individual security. There is no ethical, moral, or logical difference between shooting a burglar invading your home, a mugger brandishing a knife at you in an alley, or the agent of a corrupt and repressive government regime that is coming to take you away for "re-education". In every case the motivating and mitigating factor is the same: Defense of individual freedom and security. There's no way to break them up without doing so arbitrarily.

As for Thomas Jefferson, he never said that or anything like it. It's one of the more common misattributions: http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html

However, on the subject of self-defense he -did- like to quote bits from a work called "On Crime and Punishment" by a man named Cesare Beccaria. Here is the passage from which the quotation that's usually attributed to him directly (rather than as Jefferson quoting Beccaria) is taken:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has
no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones which can be violated with ease and impunity and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

"The more control the government has, the less crime, rape, and death will be an issue."

Crime perhaps, but only because the government will be redefining it. How many examples do we have of governments wielding absolute and unappeallable authority where that civilization was full of free, happy, peaceful, healthy, educated people? And how many examples do we have of exactly the -opposite-? The Khmer Rouge and Communist Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. The National Socialists of Germany and the Fascists of Italy, the regimes of the Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Hussein, Idi Amin, and the Taliban. Left-Wing or Right-Wing, Secular or Theocratic, the result of increased government control has always been just the opposite of the effect you envision. You distrust guns in the hands of law-abiding men and women, but would happily put them in the hands of institutions made up of men and women who are no more intelligent, moral, or trustworthy and would then be faced with all the myriad temptations of power and status? Think about it.

As for "debunking"..well, you're making statements that are simply untrue. I'm not implying that you're deliberately lying, but a falsehood is a falsehood no matter what the intent behind it was.

The tools for parental control have been provided in the latest generation of consoles and operating systems (Mac OS X has a parental control API). But the developers can't make them (parents) use it. The best they can do is during initial console setup they ask what level(s) to set it at.

Game companies simply can't pick up the responsibility dropped by some parents.

videogame developers and publishers don't have image problems among gaming consumers. those that play and buy games on a regular basis are well aware of the games and content. the only reason at all that they have this so-called image problem in the public eye is because politicians see it as a way to swing in support of family values groups which have nothing more than an orwellian agenda of eliminating all media they find offensive so that their little white babies can be pure and unadulterated.

never you mind unjust wars being raged or people in high political seats of power molesting children or embezzeling pension funds, you simple minded folk just keep on voting for us and going about your life while we rape your kids and their college funds.

@Funky J

I think it's more accurate to say that -some- parents try. As for kids being raised by society, I disagree. The "It Takes a Village" idiocy is exactly the sort of diffusion of individual responsibility that's such a problem. It's true that parents don't bear -sole- responsibility for inculcating values. Friends do it to some extent, but Parents are supposed to audit friends. Teachers do it, but parents are supposed to take an active role in their child's education, providing help when needed and keeping an ear out to ensure that the education they're getting is a good one. In other words, Parents are still the ultimate arbiters of influence even when it comes to outside sources. Also, there's a distinction that needs to be made between something influencing a child's development, and that thing "raising" a child. Raising means taking an active and personal role of guardianship and mentorship, and physical control/Rule Enforcement when necessary (If you look up the dictionary definition you'll see that it means being a Parent). Period. So by -definition- no passive media and no interactive media that cannot impose physical control or provide physical protection can "raise" a child. There are no children "raised by videogames" or "raised by television", or even "Raised by society". Either one or more -specific individuals- took the role of parent up and taught the child what they needed, or -no one- did.

To move on, your pollution analogy doesn't work for multiple reasons. First, you can't opt out of pollution, while it takes a series of conscious physical choices and actions to engage in playing a videogame, let alone playing videogames to the point where your health suffers. Second and even more fundamental, there is no causal relationship between video games and obesity. No amount of video game playing MAKES you fat. I could play video games 16 hours a day for a year and not gain weight as long as I did so while on a treadmill or exercise bike. At the same time I could play a video game for forty-eight hours straight in a hot room and be rushed to the hospital for dehydration. Obesity has nothing to do with playing games, it has to do with -not- taking actions that you should, or taking other actions you shouldn't (such as eating to excess).

Sorry, Funky J, but I'm in the camp that believes that drinking yourself to death is not Jack Daniels' fault and smoking yourself into an Iron Lung isn't Phillip Morris' fault, and those are two cases where there's actually a causal relationship between the substance being abused and the physical damage. There isn't anything like that here.