May 6, 2007
Will violent video games become an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign?It's beginning to look that way. Yesterday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a leading Republican contender, mentioned video games in relation to the recent Virginia Tech shooting rampage that killed more than 30 people.
As reported by the Washington Post, Romney, addressing a conservative Christian audience at Regent University in Virginia, said:
Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games. The Virginia Tech shooter, like the Columbine shooters before him, had drunk from this cesspool.
Regent University was founded by conservative T.V. minister Pat Robertson, himself a former presidential candidate. Romney, seen at left with Robertson, is courting the conservative Republican base as he attempts to gain ground on rivals John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The former NYC mayor will speak at Regent in June.
This is probably a good spot to point out that in order to help readers know where the candidates stand on video game issues, GamePolitics will be tracking all developments in relation to games and the presidential race using the tag Game Decision 2008.
Comments
I wish I was as optimistic as you, but Democrats can be just as censorious as Republicans, in the name of not "offending" anyone.
Your Justice Department concerns are misplaced, though. Research Bush's failed War on Porn; local and state law enforcement just refused to go after pornographers, for the most part. Not unreasonably, they informed the Justice Department they had better things to do.
You're right about the judge appointments, but elected officials can do lots of damage. It doesn't matter if the law is ultimately declared unconstitutional. If it gets passed in the first place, that means they'll keep trying until it sticks.
Thats why I said in my above post that its important that a Democrat win. It doesnt matter hardly at all what any of the candidates say about this issue, whats important is what kind of judges they appoint to the courts, and on this issue you want liberal or libertarian judges, not conservatives.
Remember, Remember, the 15th-er I mean that Democrats and Democracy share the same ideals. It's no wonder since they both have the first 3 syllables the same, oy.
I can appreciate the Devil's Advocate stance that you're taking, but it's a short step from questioning the merits of media to advocating censorship. I don't have the first doubt that if Romney had his way, he'd ban "pornography" (a blanket term for any form of erotic material, for the puritanical types), violent media, and so on. It wouldn't occur to him (or others like him) to ask what sort of media we'd have left afterwards... he'd say that we should be reading the Bible and attending Mass.
Religious fanatics of any stripe (and Romney is one, make no mistake) never stop to consider the free will of others.
I am worried about the future of the world.
Let's see, Homosexual stalking of Congressional Pages - Check.
Illegal Wiretaps - Check
Corruption - Check
Did I miss anything?
We aren't complaining that Romney talked of games as if they were equal to movies and music (indeed, that may be the only decent point of his lecture). We're complaining because he is implying that games, as well as other media, were a major factor in Columbine and the VT shootings.
Why are we complaining about that? For one thing, he cites no studies or research to back up such a claim. It's one thing to mention flawed, inconclusive evidence, but it is much worse to rely on nothing but religous rhetoric. That is not opening up a meaningful dialouge, even if that dialouge is only between conservative "concerned" citizens.
Second, Romney's claim that the VT shooter had "drunk" from a "media cesspool" doesn't match the actual reports. Although it is unknown whether Cho watched movies or listened to music, it has been found that he did not play any video games. Additionally, both Cho and the Columbine killers had deeper psychological problems well before either of them experienced any of the three mediums. Thus, I don't see how he can talk about media like it's the primary cause.
"Sure, he tells a conservative group of concerned citizens that there’s a lot of garbage in the media, he’s right there is. But this is hardly endorsing censorship."
He didn't directly suggest censorship, but based on his comments, it may very well be a part of his platform. You don't make such deragatory, inflammatory statements about the media and then support their 1st Amendment rights.
So, as you can see, it's the implications of his speech, not just the inclusion of the words video games" to it, that has roused us to critisize him.
What are you going to do, not vote for anyone that mentions video games as a legitimate form of media? Are you saying that video games deserve speical protection from criticism?
This casual metion of video games proves that Romney understands that video games are a legitmate form of expression, just like movies and music.
Sure, he tells a conservative group of concerned citizens that there's a lot of garbage in the media, he's right there is. But this is hardly endorsing censorship.
On the contrary. The statements made in this show very clearly that he doesn't research hot-button topics at all... he just posts reactionary rhetoric intended to make him look good to his target audience. Never mind that his "facts" are out-and-out WRONG, he wants to put on a good face. He doesn't care about reality... just appearance. He doesn't want to actually approach the real problem (much less ADDRESS the real problem), as long as he has a convenient target to preach about.
That pretty much shows what kind of politician he is. After something like this, can you truly trust him to actually care about the topics he discusses publically? Can you put your faith in his ability to speak about matters he truly understands, and believes are important?
I mean, for crying out loud... he wants to censor media - ALL media - for some PERCEIVED effect it's having on our culture. Anti-First Amendment rhetoric, all the way. Do we WANT someone like this in the Oval Office?
Commencement speeches don't usually make allowances for feedback. It's not like there's a Q&A session afterward. If you're one of those unruly types you could stand up and declare your disagreement at the offending remarks, but that's almost unimaginably rude, even for someone diametrically opposed to the speaker's position.
I wouldn't advise it.
@ Hyperforce
When it comes to "free" health-care, I point at England. Health-care is anything but free. Anything that is not life-threatening and you have to wait months or even years to be seen. Life-threatening pretty much boils down to you are bleeding.
Do you know where the joke that English people have bad teeth comes from? It's because when you go to an English dentist, you have to wait at least six months. Go to a dentist in the US. I guarantee you they can get you in within the week, a month at most. That's assuming you are not in pain.
And the taxes! I know England has more than just national health-care (hell why should we stop there?), but isn't the income tax rate more than 50%? I'm pretty sure national health-care is the vast majority of their budget, too.
No worse than the cesspool of vote pandering your doing.
They actually won that election and managed to kill these things making people think that gay people are pedofiles and abortion should never have even been thought off.
Instaid of free healthcare and a better social structure... but no THAT WAS COMMUNISM ¬¬' (sigh)
they won that election because of that and got a strong foothold in the american senate with it to.
now this presidential canidate there is trying to do the same with games, telling people that its the most unholy piece of crap that this world ever came up with not even knowing what a video game actually is and playing the media and the people. We all know that G. W. Bush played the media and the people, and look where it got us... indeed, got my point.
Its the only way he knows to get people to vote for him once the elections are on because he's a republican and chances are big there won't be a republican president next year.
This guy however is trying to make the people of america think the biggest threat to they're lives is violant media, where it would be much more effective to make GUNS illegal. if someone can get hold of a gun than he is more likely to use it. second he's trying to distract his voters from the big problems over in irak using violant media as a his big neon sign.
I just hope the American voters won't go fly after this guys neon sign ignoring the real problems in they're lives. Or we'll have another GW Bush on our hands.
joe liberman, hilary clinton, every other bloody politician are just boosting their political career by saying that videogames are bad. damn if i had a dime for everytime mankind has tried to boost their own PR by blaming ANY kind of entertainment or other things people thought were "Evil". oh and romney, read the damn evidence of the V tech shooting. the idiot didn't have ANYTHING that Harris and Klibold had. no basketball diarys, no violent games, no nothing! all they saw was his damn poetry and screenplays. why not say writing and literature is the cause. why not go back to blaming comics or death metal? their is violence EVERYWERE!!!! in tv, in the news, in books and in[and heres the shocker to you all] real life! the bible has violence but would you attack that? no. cause you'd be trampled by christians and cathlics[if im wrong than sorry].
ill boil it down to this. Romney should concentrait on winning PR with subjects people actually CARE about! like the war, pollution, our fuel crises, our relationships with other country, and our horrible economy! damn get on the REAL subjects!
thank you.
"Mitt Romney, a leading Republican contender, mentioned video games in relation to the recent Virginia Tech shooting rampage that killed more than 30 people."
If you've played any video games ever and not committed a crime, you've proved him wrong (ie. most people)
Simple fact is, there is no proof whatsoever linking the virginia tech shooting to games... or any shooting to any games for that matter... i wonder how many other outlets of blame without any proof at all turn out to be valid... makes you think really
Just remind yourself... 99+% of teenegers are likey to have played videogames... i dare you to name/proove ANY statistic that proves violence has gone up since the introduction of videogames...
i know ill get canned for this but i wanted to start a blog. no competition to gamepolitics or anyone else. just wanted to for the hell of it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/gs68/cd132614.png
Yeah, from the articles that I read he didn't. As for movies, I'm not sure.
Also didn't the Virginia Tech shooter's room-mate say that he never played video games or even saw violent movies?
Sorry, but politicans are always gonna go for the cheap and easy vote, nothing more. Hiliary, obama, romney, Mccain. They all will lie and cheat to get elected and turn on the people as soon as they are. Don't belive me, look at what happened with the recent elections. All those promisies made by Dems to win? Not happeneing now are they?
Sorry, but this is nothing new. i can't be impressed with an idiot poli spouting bs. It's just not news anymore.
He forgot literature. There's more sex and violence in the Bible than in any other peice of media, and nobody is doing anything about that.
Oddly enough, nobody blames news reports for copycat-criminals and the only person to shift the blame on educational documentaries was Mike Judge in the episode where Beavis and Butthead were hospitalized for mimicing something they saw on TV: a PBS documentary on Benjamin Franklin. At the end of the episode, a news interviewer saw that the only possible show on at the time was the documentary (having checked the TV listings under the time they said they got the idea) and thought to herself "That couldn't have been it" and simply blamed rock music. (Seriously, what rock star flies a kite in a thunderstorm?)
Oh and Romney will more then likely not win at all because at one point in around 1994 he said that abortion should be safe and legal in the US so that will come back and bite him. I have that clip on my PS3 when I was testing my computers video converter. So I should not be worried about him. He's a joke that has no real plan for the White House. And also being friends with conservative nutjob T.V. minister Pat Robertson does not help much either.
It's the same way with Jack Thompson. After the VT shooting, that guy made the rounds on seemingly every major news outlet - in particular, MSNBC. And what does he appear as? A "school shooting expert." A "video game expert," both of which are complete and utter nonsense. To me, any viewer of mainstream news should be gravely concerned whenever such an "expert" arrives to give an opinion. They could well be the Jack Thompsons of their respective fields. I mean, how can anyone know? Once you let a nut job like Thompson on there, why should we ever trust anything an "expert" says?
One "expert" taints the rest. That's where the similarity lies. If this is the way a candidate will deal with something as paltry as video games, imagine how they'll treat other issues.
Oh, and of course Romney finds himself at the infamous Regent University, which is damning enough in my opinion. Regent University was, of course, founded by the Christian Broadcasting Network and was originally known as the CBN University. It is nothing more than a school sponsored by a television network! It ranks incredibly low on serious studies of academic quality and yet politicians around this country come and go to this place. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be showing up to give a speech at the "Tighten the graphics on Level 3" trade school. A pathetic joke Romney is.
Not a threat. Just like the rest of them.
As for presidential elections in general, game issues totally do NOT influence my decision. I'm not gonna vote for a numbskull with no foreign policy skills just because he likes video games, and I may just vote for a candidate who hates games if he promotes a domestic agenda I prefer.
Simply put, first amendment implications aside, there are more important issues than video games. On a local level, sure, but when it gets to be national, I'd rather just try to influence the politicians of my own preferred ideological bent.
A good friend of mine is Mormon and a gamer, as well as a hard-line conservative. Naturally, he's supporting Romney in the election. So I'll have to ask him about the comments.