January 24, 2007
A committee of the Utah House considered Rep. Scott Wyatt's proposed video game legislation yesterday in Salt Lake City.Members of the Public Utilities and Technology Committee heard Wyatt (left) discuss his bill, including the reasons why he would like to see it go forward as well as his frank acknowledgment of the constitutional hurdles the measure faces.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff also spoke, addressing past failures experienced by such bills before the federal courts. Responding to recent criticism, Shurtleff assured the committee that, despite his professional reservations, if the bill does come to a court fight, he and his legal team will defend it to the best of their abilities.
Also speaking were Gail Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, a conservative organization and Matt Anderson, a lobbyist who argued against the bill on behalf of the video game industry.
GamePolitics readers can listen to the 56-minute hearing here (Real Player format).
The committee will continue its consideration of Wyatt's bill on Friday.
UPDATE: If you can't get the Utah site's file to play, grab an mp3 here.
Comments
What about the parents who beat him as a child. The people who ridiculed him and ostracized him from everyone? What about the people who watched the self destructive behavior, and ignored it as it became destructive.
They hold blame to. Generic example, but it serves its purpose.
Games can give ideas, so can looking at human history.
I don't know if I agree with you. If someone is crazy, that means that video games aren't going to make him or her crazier. Another reason why video games shouldn't be blamed for crimes is because it takes the blame off the perpotrator. Anti-game activists say, "Blame video games. The video games made him do it, but whatever you do, don't blame the killer." The killer is the only one responsible and the only one who should be punished. No one esle is responsible in any way.
Game can infulence, in the same way that a book can.
I've got a new nickname for you. "Nick At Nite".
you know but i think fu*ked up is proving a point.
It Seems like, all you have to do is say that you dont' want a group/organization/idea (video games, movies, books, conservitives, democrats, pledge of alligence etc. ) that is a$$ociated with the media, Wage a political war in the courts in the name of "the children" in different states at the cost of tax payer money until someone passes into law making other states pass it as law. There by forcing the general populous to take on that belief.
I mean come on... i remember when some guy was trying to get the phrase "under god" taken out of the pledge of alligence in cali.
I would feel justified in getting fox news taken off the air if laws that are blatantly unconsti!utional bills are passed into law. personally, if you take something of mine. i take something back in compensation.
If that ment the majority of convervitive/liberal ideas were bared then w/e. maybe then people would realize how stupid it was that it was mentioned in court.
if that ever did happen... Why did we trade the king for the corporation?
Why did we even start this country?
Ron Paul for 2008 prez. :)
But yeah... I recall that now. Thanks for the correction ^_^
Jack Thompson, and other anti-game activists, say that first person shooters made Micheal Carneal more accurate with a gun. Most first person shooters even have a locking device to make a player more accurate. Of course, that doesn't exist in real life. Another thing he says is that they desensatize people to the act of killing.
To this, I say, "Oh yeah?" I've been playing for many years and I had a very small auto accident about a year and a half ago. No one was hurt and there was almost no damage at all and I felt horrible about it. That was just a small unintentional accident and I felt horrible about myself. That proves that I haven't been desensetized at all. These games don't teach anything about killing and they don't desensatize either.
Another thing that bothers me is that these anti-game activist people never even played the games. They don't know these theories are wrong because they never played the games themselves. One thing we could do is to send letters to politicians telling them to play the games and they should start to realize that they can't influence anybody.
(Also, your facts are wrong. A majority of the anti-violent game bills are being sponsored and written by DEMOCRATS.)
Sorry, but ignorant and partisan comments like that are what a lot of people are ticked off at Thompson about. Conservatives have just as much right to speak as anyone else. it should notbe your goal to shut them up; you should be trying to give them the correct information instead, since they seem not to have it. If they choose not to listen, bypass them in some way. But censoring them is as bad as what Jack is trying to do.
clinton and liberman would be another movement.
hmm i wonder if we can get jack thompson, clinton and liberman on jerry springer.
Only if the ban prevents liberals and non-fox news as well. Equal protection -- aka the second reason why these video game bills are unconst!tutional. After all, it's not fair to single out conservatives when the liberals are equally full of it (Clinton and Lieberman come immediately to mind).
I know it was not popular with the people. However it was popular with his party. It got him followers and people it brought to him people who believed his ideology. That is its importance.
Everything he wrote in that book pretty much became part of Hitlers plans. Had anyone in the soviet union looked at it they would have realized Hitler was not going to be friendly with them for long.
I understand why the people followed him. I Know what happened to the Germany economy and I know that the people where burning the worthless money because it was cheaper than buying fuel for their stoves.
Sadly Hitler gave them something to be proud of. HE was given power by the fact that Europe wanted to punish Germany , despite the fact that Austria really started WW1. The treaty of Versailles started ww2 by punishing Germany so badly that they could never have recovered under its rules.
All those factor combined led to WW2. I am well aware of them.
@Daniel
Are you a complete idiot? Are you trying to tell me games cannot convey thoughts and ideas? Are you saying the GTA series has no value as satire? Are you telling me that FF7 has no story?
Are you basically agreeing with the laws jack wrote that say games should be banned?
"Does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
That has been in most of the serious anti game legislation. You are essentially agreeing with this by saying games cannot convey thoughts or Ideas.
That or you have proven once again you cannot think in anything but black and white, or you completely missed the point of what I was saying.
So umm can we get a movement going to ban conservatives ban from speaking and fox news as well. Cuz I dont want my children to have access to such content. I dont want my child growing up making false promises in the name of family values. I dont want my child going around blaming how this country is in the toilet because of immigration and technology. And I dont want my child believing that its better to protect the people to deny them freedom and make this country into a police state.
She sounds just like JT. He did go to their Eagle Forum conference this past week I think, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Anyway, remember that JT called Bully a "Columbine Simulator". We assumed SCMRPG, because we know of ACTUAL "Columbine" games. But she's been clearly briefed by JT (Devin Moore, brain menu, perfect shot, trained by game, lame quote, etc), and so when she says "Columbine game", I'm pretty sure it's Bully.
I think she was probably refering to Bully, which did get a "T" rating. But yeah, she's still wrong on the "recreating Columbine" part.
Representative Wyatt made mention of the violence in video games adding to the aggressive behavior in the kids of a friend of his. And when he sees this type of behavior that he takes away the game in question and the kids change.
But here is my question: what kind of parent is this that is purchasing these "ultra-violent games" for their kids who are obviously under the age intended for these types of games. And yet one of the members of the committee commended Wyatt's friend for taking the game away... commending this parent for doing something that should not have been in the hands of these kids in the first place had this guy done his job as a parent originally.
This is not a government issue... this is a parental issue. Parents need to stop whining about things like violent video games and do their job as a parent to regulate what their kids are doing... which includes not buying them violent video games.
Another thing that caught me as odd... a comment that any 13-year-old kid could walk into any store and buy a violent video game. Got evidence to support that statement? Or are you just generalizing?
I have a friend who is 30 years old who went to pick up F.E.A.R. for the PC and got ID'd... so no, any 13-year-old kid cannot walk in and purchase M-rated titles...
Gail Ruzicka makes mention of Super Columbine Massacre RPG and makes mention that it is rated "T"... O_o
Excuse me? Rated T? It's a free game... online... not bought through a video game store... and is not rated at all. Failure...
Anyone think they can convert this to MP3 or something, or maybe write up some minutes.
Actually this is not that true. Mein Kampf was not that popular until Hitler was well into power in Germany, and even then many germans merely owned the book solely because all german citizens were forced to have a copy of it in their house to show they were loyal to Hitler and the Nazi party. The main reason many germans blindly followed Hitler was due to his ability to help Germany become a powerful nation again through rebuilding the country, strenghening the military, giving hope (although blind hope as shown later on) to the german people after being through the great depression which hit Germany really hard after losing the first World War.
You mean the phrase that was added in the 1950's to show we weren't like the "godless commies"? I'd say that violates the establishment clause.
When the original, without those words, was in fact, written by a minister that didn't think they needed to be there?
I can't speak for him; but yes. It happens, can happen. People who are unstable can be set off by anything; a video game, a movie, even something they read or a dirty look they recieve. Would it happen to someone who is mentally healthy? Highly improbable. So yes, sometimes, it does happen, because someone who isn't right in the head is influenced by it (in which case they shouldn't have been playing in the first place, but that's often not exactly something we can control).
I'm don't believe that violent video games cause violence and murder, what i'm saying is video games like all other forms of Free Speech have the ability to give people ideas and insperation. Whether those people choose to act out on their ideas and insperations is up to the person. A video game may give the person an idea but that person choose to act it out themselves. It's not the video games fault. It's the person's fault and the fact of the matter is if it wasn't a video game that gave them the idea or insperation, they probably would have gotten it elsewhere. A video game can't make a person unable to comprehend the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy and what is acceptable or not to do in real life situations. People commit violence out of their own Free Will, not because a video game made them.
I get that you are saying that video games don't cause violence, for the most part, but that sometimes, they do. Do you think that they sometimes cause people to kill? Do you think that there are some people who are dead that wouldn't be dead if video games didn't exist? Is that what you're saying that you believe that violent video games sometimes make people violent? Please tell me because it sounds like that's what you believe.
Thanks.
Video games along with all other forms of media and Free Speech have the ability to shape thoughts and feelings as well as give ideas and insperations. It it didn't, it would be Free Speech.
Of course that doesn't mean video games or other forms of media somehow scrambles a kids or adults brain circuits causing them to go into some sort of trance and become more aggressive or violent.
Therein lies the difference between things like alcohol and cigerettes that should be regulated and have restricitions put on it and Free Speech media.
If you drink enough beers, you'll get drunk. You can't choose to drink heavily and not get drunk. It's something that is out of your control.
If you smoke, you have a high chance of getting lung cancer or other health related problems. You can't choose to smoke and not get cancer or other health related problems. It's something that is out of your control.
With Free Speech media it's different though. Video games along with all other forms of media may give someone an idea and insperation that they might end up acting out on. But that person chose to do it themselves. IT WAS NOT something that was out of their control.
So in essence, the media does have the ability to shape our thoughts and feelings BUT it does not directly cause us to become more violent or aggressive. We choose to act out on the ideas and insperations we get from the media. It's our choice to make and we are responsible for our own actions.
Free Speech cannot be restricted or censored solely because it may shape our thoughts and feelings. This would be, in an indirect manner, a form of government mind and thought control, as the government is controling the ability of people to form their own viewpoints based on unrestircted and uncensored access to media that presents ideas, information, messages and opinions.
The proper way of dealing with what could be potencially negative speech isn't censorship or regulations but putting even more speech out there such as counter-speech or education on media literacy.
So Daniel, just because we believe video games have the ability to shape thoughts and feelings (just like every other form of media and Free Speech out there) doesn't mean we agree with the likes of Jack Thompson and believe that Doom caused Columbine, or that GTA caused Devin Moore to kill police officers. Those people chose to commit those crimes themselves. Video games did not scamble their brain circuits causing them to commit acts of violence and destruction that were out of their control.
Brokenscope, it appears to me that when you say that video games influence people, you are saying that you think that playing video games led Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Micheal Carneal, and Devin Moore to kill people. It seems like you're saying that you think these games are murder simulators. Up there, you said that these games influence people and it's very hard for me to accept that because that's what I've been argueing against. If I admit that violent video games influence people and lead to violence in the real world, then I don't have an argument. I don't have a case.
I'd be agreeing with Jack Thompson if I said that video games influence people. That's why it's so hard for me to see them in a neutral lite. Please tell me up there, when you said that games influence people, did you mean that you think they lead to violent behavior in the real world? Do you think that violent video games led to the crimes of Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Micheal Carneal, and Devin Moore?
Hayabusa 75, I think I do tend to repeat the same things, but I like defending violent video games. It's a very important thing in my life. I know that violent video games are innocent of everything that they have been accused of. For instance, I just finished playing Scarface on my XBOX and I have been playing it for about four hours non stop. I don't feel crazy. I've been doing very violent things in the video game, but I'm not going to do anything crazy in the real world because I know the difference between fantasy and reality.
Another thing is that a lot of people around the world play games that are about as violent as Scarface for XBOX and they don't go crazy. I believe that the gamers I mentioned up there, would have done what they did no matter what Doom and Grand Theft Auto Vice City had nothing to do with it. I mean aren't you here to defend violent video games? Aren't you also here as a gamer who is against Jack Thompson and his lies? If you had a friend that was being slandered and you knew he was innocent, wouldn't you step in?
I know that violent video games are being malitiously slandered by anti-game activists and I'm trying to point out the enourmous holes in their lies. I don't always do it the right way, but I'm trying and at least I have totally put the idea that these games make people violent out of my mind and rejected it completely because I know they don't. I know first hand because I am a gamer and almost every game I ever played was full of gory violence and I've never even thrown a punch at anyone in real life. I know they're wrong and I try to get the truth out anyway possible.
Actually no, you repeat yourself pretty much every day. Let's call it for what it is.
Mein Kampf on its own did not start ww2. However it did help Hitler in his rise to power. A simple book written by a mad man helped push the entire world into a massive war.
Some of us believe that games have the ability to convey ideas. Something that give them literary power. Something that gives them an effect on people.
I have no idea why you are so resistant to that idea.
Another thing I don't like about Jack Thompson is that he attacked one of IceT's albums in the early 1990's. I like rap music and I like IceT. I think he's a great rapper and that's another reason why I don't like Jack Thompson. I don't know why anyone would stoop that low to attack the album of an awesome rapper like IceT. He is a great man, a great rapper, and a great actor. Hail IceT. He was awesome in "New Jack City" and "Surviving the Game."
I know I tend to repeat myself sometimes, but I keep trying to tell you all that violent video games aren't dangerous and state the reasons why. I'm not going to just state my opinion and leave it at that. That's Jack Thompson's thing. He states his opinions and doesn't back it up.
Because all we get from you are reruns. Actually, maybe that wasn't such a good fit; Nick At Nite still has some pretty good stuff.
Why did you come up with "Nick at Nite" for a nickname for me? I know what it is, but how does that have anything to do with what I've said and done? Brokenscope, if you think that violent video games influence people and caused Columbine and Peducah, then why are you defending them? If you think they cause violence, you should be on the other side of the issue with the anti-game activists. I defend them because I truly believe that they don't cause violence and they don't inspire anyone to become violent. If you think I'm wrong, you should be on the other side of the issue.
See folks, this is why I keep coming back for more. Dennis always looks out for his readers.
-Person with an anger disorder
-Gets fired, looses girl friend,
-Plays a violent video game which aggravates him slightly
-Is later confronted with someone who gets into a fight with him, and punches him in the face
-He has a gun in his pocket, and decides to use it, killing the attacker.
Did the video game CAUSE the killing? Of course not
Was it a factor? Mabye.
The point is, its a possibility, that perhaps the slight boost in adrenaline from the video game was the feather which tipped the scale, in which the man decided to kill instead of running away or doing things differently.
Its however more probable that the man would of killed anyways, in his already distraught condition, whether or not he had played the game.
The point is, video games CAN affect us. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, maybe they could affect us to be better people, maybe they let us drain our anger out onto something, like punching a pillow. Maybe they CAN make us slightly more aggressive.
But ANY way you put it, they cant be blamed for what happened. Yes, they could be considered a factor, but I don't think they alone can CAUSE a person to kill.
Personally, I think video games are more likely to CALM an aggravated person, letting him take out his aggression in a virtual setting. But in that case Video Games still AFFECT you, to be more calm. Either way, Video Games can STILL affect people.
If you read none of this, at least read this:
The ability to affect people is not a BAD thing
ALL FORMS OF ART AFFECT PEOPLE
That, is in my opinion, is what makes art, art.