August 25, 2007 -
Here's a clip of this week's Star Jones interview from Court TV.
During the 13-minute segment, Star digs into the video game violence issue with three guests:
During the 13-minute segment, Star digs into the video game violence issue with three guests:
Craig Scott, Columbine survivor and speaker with Rachel's Challenge
State Sen. Leland Yee (D), architect of California's 2005 video game law, which was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court
Katherine Fallow, an attorney who has successfully represented the video game industry against legislative challenges.
Comments
but where is, outside of the occasional tragic event - and these events existed in society since time immemorial in one way or another - the crisis? Given the pervasiveness of violent media, there should be a lot more Brooks Browns and Craig Scotts in the world talking about this issue. Instead most people go to High School with violent video game players and nothing bad happens. By most people, I mean 99.5+%
Tomorrow I'm speaking on these issues at PAX. I'll be in front of hundreds of hardcore gamers talking first about Games & Politics and then Gaming with Children. By the judgement of the anti-videogame activists, I should fear for my life tomorrow.
Instead I'm looking forward to meeting a lot of really nice people (who happen to revel in virtual carnage in their spare time). I'm looking forward to it.
I had no problem with Yee...he is just doing the same stuff that he always does and I hope that he eventually comes to understand the real causes of youth violence on fatal scales...I noticed that for someone who always talks about being a child behavior expert, he never seems to care about non videogame related youth violence...that is the real problem.
The lawyer (on top of being pretty easy on the eyes) was so perfectly blunt on the matter...she never wasted time with rhetoric or anything...just straight facts and confidence.
I just can't understand how craig scott can be so obtuse about the whole issue...it just seemed like his point of view wrong for his age group. I only hear talk like that from people who were never exposed to videogames...I know he is aware of games and probably had no problem with them till the media placed blame on them entirely.
So this goes to show how damaging the blame game can be.
Mike
lets face it...the world we live in today has little in common with the ideal religous world of yesteryear...secularism is much more pervasive in todays culture and when someone of a strong religous background tries to push a agenda...it will always leave alot of people out.
If they want to have a debate about video games they need to actually talk to adult gamers. people get a lot of opinions formed because of Television and when they only see one side of the issue than they will act on that.
What gamers need to do is organize on a nationwide level and start doing media events...the videogame voters network will never be as effective as a group of gamers making television appearences and perhaps holding broadcasted debates with people like Yee and others. Poeple will then be able to put a human face on gaming and hear from the people who actually stand to have something to lose.
I would love to organize this but I have no idea where to start...getting gamers motivated for public debate seems like a difficult thing to do.
About the guests:
Craig Scott just irritated me. He just seemed to treat media as the sole cause of Columbine and threw everything else-the boys' home life, their mental illnesses-out the window. He treats the "broken nose" as a valid theory without citing any "experts" who have brought it up. Finally, at the end of the day, he's no more an expert on youth violence than a 9/11 survivor is on terrorism. I understand they brought him on to give the "I was there" perspective, but couldn't they have picked someone who WASN'T using tradgedy to push their private agenda?
Leland Yee, what can I say? He's spouting the same things he always has. From being unrepentant on wasting taxpayer money to pushing the "the evidence proves video games cause violence!" angle even though 9 judges have said otherwise, the man is and always will be stubborn as all hell. I also get annoyed that he implies kids are getting more violent, when we are experincing a 10-year decline in violent crime across the board. And yet this man has a degree in child psychology?
Katherine Fallow was a little better, but she about as vauge on her claims as Leland Yee. If she cited statistics from the recent FCC report showing improvement in ESRB enforcenment or somesuch, that would have really strengthened her case. I do like that she pointed out parental controls on consoles. That was a step in the right direction.
All in all, not much new was said. I don't think that's the fault of any of the guests, but rather the short time they each had to talk. The states have made video game violence into an important national issue, so we may as well treat it as such. That means we need more than the last five minutes of the Daily Blab to discuss it. Oh well, I guess that's why we have these forums. ;)
It's a ludicrous program with heavily Christian undertones that infiltrates public schools under the guise of being anti-violence. It's ludicrous because they present A LOT of "miraculous" connections and utter BS. Supposedly some psychic called Rachel Scott's father weeks after the shooting dreaming about a sketch in her notebook? Yeah, I believe that.
They had enough sense to not blame videogames at the presentation at my school last year, but I was ready to interrupt with a counterpoint if they had...and I'm a teacher, not a student.
protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors by the least restrictive means and the means must actually further the articulated interest."
Yee's comment that Judge Whyte found that the state had a compelling interest is both true and misleading.
"The government clearly has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors... The state can legitimately restrict speech if such a restriction is narrowly tailored and will
prevent or significantly decrease the likelihood of antisocial and aggressive behavior in minors—not merely how a minor thinks of violence."
However, the court also found that the act does not choose the least restrictive means and that the state had not actually shown that the act would further the articulated interest.
In other words, the state couldn't demonstrate that the act would work any better than the ratings and parental controls already in place and that it couldn't prove that violent games are actually harmful to minors in the first place.
"The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act."
To sum up, legislation to protect children is cool but you have to prove that the act would work and that the children actually need protecting. So far, legislators have done neither.
Andrew Eisen
I think it was Jon Stewart who said something to the effect of "the problem with activists is they don't have anything to do."
That kind of sums up the problem getting gamers to move, Personally myself, I try and jump in and make counterpoints and play devils advocate in any debate i get in. Just to make people think about things from a different perspective, and when it comes to game violence I actaully have never had to say anything other than facts before the entire conversation went something like "but still, i don't like it"
I can't debate personal preference so it just ends.
The only time i really think i made any sort of difference was in a high school debate in a speech class. I didn't even debate until my closing arguement, I just stated facts i went through a list of them. All my counterpoints were facts. I used only about 20% of the time alloted to me and at the end of it, the class voted me the winner, BUT the teacher came to me afterwards and told me she had never had her opinion change during one of the debates till then.
It's not that we don't want to move, or that we can't, it's just we all have things to do. Right now I am currently deployed to make life livable and peaceful for people in this area. So even if there was a movement i couldn't help. Others too have to work, and work hard. I think that if we really look at the demographic of gamers now, we see that more and more they are hard working, and busy, have lives, have responsibilities to take care of. It is situations like this, people that have jobs to denounce things like gamers don't get the adequate response because those who can respond still have their own lives and can't find enough time to strike down flawed argument, flawed judgment and reasoning, and overbearing opinions. In the end it just comes down to people being picked on who have better things to do.
Good point about the console content control. Never, ever mentioned in these things.
One thing I have often been curious about - why is Microsoft not promoting the heck out of their Vista parental controls?? Seems like a major selling point.
Yee: "I was able to get a law passed.." Lie of omission, bonus points!
I seriously can't understand how these people think that games affect perfectly normal people. I've mentioned before, I've been playing M-rated games since age 8, and I can't even imagine myself hurting another person on purpose.
I'm sorry about what Scott went through, but he's focusing his energies on the wrong cause. He should be advocating parents taking an interest in what games kids play, not advocate media regulation.
I'm glad to see Lee get flustered. Apparently he and his anti-gaming buddies can't just lay down their arms and accept the First Amendment. His California law was crap, he needs to accept that fact and move on. If he wants more evidence that there isn't a correlation, he needs to check out the AMA report-even America's doctors can't find this fictional link.
And Katherine did great. She actually managed to come out of that debate looking like the winner. At least to me.
When are people going to accept that the government doesn't need to regulate media? There are better uses for taxpayer dollars.
I'm a Christian and I consider myself a hard core Christ-follower. Craig Scott may be "hard core religious", but that doesn't mean much to me. My Uncle, who is a pastor, holds Halo 2 parties at church to bring teens in. My dad is a pastor who has no problem with my playing all the violent games I do (He just watched me beat Bioshock). A little about me: I am a college student who is a Christian Ministries major. That means I'm going to be a pastor. I've been gaming my whole life and most of the games I have played are violent (Halo, Bioshock, Call of Duty, Doom, Quake, etc).
The point I'm trying to make is it's not all religious people trying to blame games and are so anti-violent games(though some are), it's people who can't parent; people who can't watch their kids. Most kids need a parent to take them to the store to buy stuff. Watch what they buy. You see Halo in the shopping cart. Go online, search for info on Halo. You will find all you need to know on the game. Then you can decide if your kid should play it or not.
But don't let me tell you how to be a wise parent, I'm just 20 and obviously know nothing.
I am sorry for implying that all Christians are anti videogame...I know that is not correct.
But I have to say that it seems that most anti game activists are waving the flag of god to further their cause. This is problematic for gamers because some folks think that being anti game is being a good christian...craig scott is one of them types that takes things to far and uses god as leverage...this behavior needs to stop.
I know that as a athiest I can come off as callous when it comes to religion...but I hate to see something that can be used for good, more often than not used for personal gain.
I am glad you have a good experience with religion and I wish that would happen more...maybe they could help with the fight against this insanity.
Mike
Something that really bothered me even more: Star Jones saying that video games are becoming 'increasingly violent'... I hate that phrase. It gives people who don't understand the industry the impression that each wave of games is getting more and more violent than the last. It's as if there will soon be nothing but Manhunt 2-levels of violence on the shelves.
It was nothing against you. I was just clarifying that there are Christians in the world who play violent video games. I don't appreciate it when people use religion to back their cause when it's for the wrong reason.
One thing said by Star Jones that confused me was when early on she made a point that it's hard to watch what your kids are doing and the government needs to help. At the end she mentions how she has no kids. How would she know? She said it like she had first hand experience watching kids and what they play and do on the internet.
I consider myself to be a christian gamer, I do not like the idea of using religion, or misrepresenting it in the case of Jack Thompson, for personal idealistic gain. That to me is wrong. I think Yee is at least attempting to do his job but even so the responsibility lies with the parents, that's where all of these problems began anyways.
It was an ok interview if not one-sided, but it did not bring anything new to the table.
Just uttering that idiocy should be reason enough for impeachment. Any politician who wants to challenge the first amendment shouldn't not be allowed to be a politician. And what's with these idiots not understanding that retailers are following the rules?
Her whole "I enjoy games!" thing at the start was obviously fake, and the presence of Scott was inappropriate because he brought no actual facts to the debate, but she seemed to give both sides a decent amount of air time and at the end of the day she said what we have all been trying to say to parents, for them to take responsibility for their children's entertainment.
Lee was much as expected, although I'm pleased to see they used him.. who from what I've read is one of the more reasonable people involved in the anti game violence side. He seems very much like a genuinely intelligent and concerned individual rather than a frothing fanatic.
I was really impressed with the lawyer, she kept on topic and didn't confuse issues, she actually seemed to know what she was talking about which is important.
The main problem with the entire interview, is Scott.. he had no place there, and while I can accept that he has an emotional investment in his beliefs, they are entirely groundless and meaningless.. his personal tragedy should have no room in this debate, as he understandable was influenced by what he saw and his attempts to explain and comprehend why it happened. His whole "I saw the gun hit him and he realized it wasn't a game" spiel is, unless backed up by actual scientific/psychological evidence from reputable sources, complete trash and has no place in any argument about this.
People like Scott are our biggest challenge in this kind of thing... frothing zealots are obviously just that, frothing zealots.. but clean faced young men with horrible sob stories need to be shot down and kept out of the debate, they bring not value to it.
this'll sound very sick, and i dont joke about these things often...but when you said people like him need to be shot down....do you mean like his sister and friends?
Oh... my.. god..
I really didn't consider that interpretation >.
While I am disappointed in Craig (though at the same time feel sorry for him, as I read a story where he had to smear his dead friends' blood on himself and lay still so the shooters would think he was dead and move on without shooting him), I also suspect he took a big swig of Kool-Aid. Apparently some "expert" told him the gun recoil story. Do we know any "experts" who would posit such a theory? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
are you really that fucking stupid to make a comment like that?
Katherine might have been more specific, sure, but she really stayed on-topic, answered each question directly and confidently and made the case very clearly.
Sen. Yee dodged questions, skipped topics, and was really unable to do anything successfully except cling to the emotional appeal that comes with the territory. BTW, exactly which game do you urinate on women? I presume it's a Rockstar title? Table Tennis? Maybe I just missed out on some modern classic, but it doesn't even sound all that authentic. (Although if you had a female Sim and she peed herself, could that technically count?)
Oh, and Craig was about the most horrifying human being I've seen in awhile. Clearly misguided, and has a look in his eyes like he's never gonna be right in the head ever again.
Also, I feel sorry for the guy who lost his sister and friends during the Columbine incident but it's ridiculous to lay blame on video games or even violent media alone. It's been well documented of the bulling that was going on in that school, and how it was run, which made it sound like a hell hole by another fellow Columbine classmate in Brooks Brown. I'd blame it more on the crap that went on at the school rather than what they played or watched.
In the end it's the parent's responsibility to watch over their children and to make sure they aren't playing or viewing material that they feel is inappropriate for them. Schools now need to be more responsible and handle the children with more care and stop dismissing them because they just want a paycheck.
Just spreading this around so that someone of actual political influence can see how much of a hack Jackie boy is.
Jackie-boy for the win.
What I was getting as is he looked liks the type who in school would out the 'weird" kids, and Klebold and Harris did fit into that "weird" crowd.