SJ Mercury-News Editor Explains Support of California Video Game Law

That reminds me of a teacher a grade or two above mine back when I was in second grade (lived in Arizona at the time) being a ***** to this girl who was crying and mentioning something about rights. The woman said back that she didn't have rights or something like that.

I wonder if they still paddle students at the two schools I went to when I was living there for a couple years, hmm...

In the original editorial:

"It shouldn’t be so hard to protect children from the most twisted, sadistic images that the mind can imagine…"

I can't take the editorial as anything more than the personal opinion piece that it is. This is because I can imagine things much worse than anything in any videogame. Then reality shows us, on a daily basis, that things are going on in life much more twisted than anything I can imagine.

Still, people not understanding the meanings of words, and from a journalist. Increased aggression does NOT equal increased violence. Aggression is a normal human emotion, and is required as part of sports and any type of competition.

*stupid no-edit*

Just the other day, I played Mortal Kombat with a friend. Did we go out and beat someone to hell? Steal a car? Kill another? No, we didn't.

"The position we’ve taken as a newspaper… We think generally as a society there is beginning to be some body of evidence that especially the ulta-violent games really have an impact on the psyche of younger kids - younger kids whose brains aren’t fully deveoped, whose emotional well-being isn’t fully developed…"

Will we ever stop hearing this?

A large majority of gamers are over the age of 18. Legally adults.

I will never understand why people have the idea that (insert latest violent game here) is for their 8 year old just because it is a video game.

so not only did the editor make a pro-censorship jackass speech, but he's attempting to come up with good reasons for being a jackass?

i'm not convinced.

"[Playing violent video games] is not passive. It’s not like sitting in a movie theater and watching someone else do the killing…"

Someone else, like Governor Schwarzenegger you mean in one of his ultra violent movies? So do we have to worry about Arnold going on a killing spree because he acted out these scenes?

Also trying to get television and movies off the hook so you can bash games and still support your actor Governor is bull. I've seen just as many studies linking aggression to movies as there are about video games. But you are following a Governor who is ultimately hypocritical, so it would be impossible to not be a hypocrite yourselves.


"A little bit of irony there, isn’t it? What can you say about Schwarzenegger? He has a past and he’s looking to improve his future… I think he also has teenage kids and he knows what teenagers are doing around the house and that might have impact on him as well…"

This isn't irony. This is hypocrisy.

Also, a newspaper going against free speech? Idiotic beyond words.

I'm starting to get annoyed with this.

I love JT posts - who doesn't? we get to exercise logic and profanity. However, "educated" people siding based on what they want to see just makes my blood boil.

I see these folks throwing the word "ultra-violent" around recklessly. What exactly does it mean? How are games any more violent than any other media, such as movies or books? How are fictional media any more violent than, say, real life? There are wars going on over the world, in which real people really die. In our cities, there is crime, in which real people really die. In nature, life forms are constantly killing and devouring each other. As far as I can see, all forms of media are pretty white-washed and gushied up compared to reality, which is the only thing that is truly "ultra-violent." As Inago Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"We think generally as a society there is beginning to be some body of evidence that especially the ulta-violent games really have an impact on the psyche of younger kids"

The biggest piece of evidence is the study which shows a corellation between violent video games and increased aggression. I would still like to see this study performed on people who take part in or watch competitive sports and see the results. I have seen grown men beat the crap out of each over arguments when watching rival teams, I have heard threats and foul language from spectators at football matches, and I have seen footage of countless brawls between professional sports teams. To this day, the worst behaviour I have seen caused by video games is some mild swearing and a few thumped desks in frustration at a camper in CS :)

There is no "body" of evidence. There are a handful at best of flawed and inconclusive studies, which do not even come close to proving any ill-effects from playing violent video games.

" - younger kids whose brains aren’t fully deveoped, whose emotional well-being isn’t fully developed…"

Do I want my under age kids playing GTA/Bioshock/Manhunt? No, of course not. But even if they were to play, I do not think it would make them violent. Perhaps teach them some inappropriate words, but nothing worse than what can be seen on most tv shows.

"[Playing violent video games] is not passive. It’s not like sitting in a movie theater and watching someone else do the killing…"

No, it is different. If you are playing a game, you know that you need to push a button to do an action in the game. This is an important disconnect between what you see and what you know. If you are watching a movie, you sit back and take it all in. Video games have this interactive double-sided quality. It makes it seem less real, as you have to concentrate and press the right buttons, but it seems more fun at the same time.

"We support Yee’s and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s push to regulate this as a society."

Pointless. Just like novels, tv, comic books, etc., video games will come to be accepted as part of our society once the nay-sayers and the out of touch/adverse to change fade into the limelight.

"To say as a society there needs to be some restriction upon this, the same way there’s a restriction on pornography… we think there’s a societal statement to be made…"

There needs to be a restriction on something that is in no way comparable to pornography? The only societal statements that are made when people try to legislate over video game content are "I will protect your children, vote for me!" and "I don't understand this new technology and this insecurity makes me decry it!"

"We think it’s worthwhile to go ahead and have this adjudicated at a higher level…"

It has been, several times. And every single time, the record never changes... no proof that video games are bad, unconstitutional, no reason to legislate, parent's responsibility...

"I hope what would happen from this kind of review, is that we’d get a clear indication of what the courts would see as being legal in order to maybe refine how this law comes up in the future."

Again... THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED! In the 9 or so times that this issue has come to court, the decision has been unanimous! How can you refine how the law comes up in future other than "Was not passed then, will not be passed now".

I wonder how the newspaper would feel about their rights being limited...

@ Gavin Schmitt

Excuse me, but the BBFC did release a report a while back saying that video games were less harmful due to interactivity. That it was the interaction with what is happening on the screen that keeps you anchored into the "real world". Whereas, the passive nature of movies can have a much greater effect as you do not maintain that "real world" quality. It's been a while since I read the report, so I may have misquoted it a little, but I'm certain that my statement reflected it's spirit.

Sometimes I wish that the industry was in control of the government. Totalitarian-ish.

@ Gavin Schmitt

I'm with you on your first post.

And a newspaper wanting free speech limited is like a jehova witness wanting less watchtower pamphets distributed.

And to those that think violence is hurting your kids i say this. to have brought these violent games you need money. now most that would play these games would be in their late teens which would mean they'd usually be getting their money from a job for the 8 and ten year olds you the parent would have to buy the damn game. all these attempts at legislation seem to be nothing more than lazy parenting.

OK. I've sited the BBFC report a few times, so I think it's time I back my words up. Here comes the official findings:

-That children begin playing games at an increasingly early age, but that the overall age of games players is getting older.
-There is a sharp divide between male and female games players in their taste in games and how long they spend playing.
-Female games players tend to prefer ‘strategic life simulation’ games like The Sims and puzzle games and spend less time playing than their male counterparts.
-Male players favour first ‘person shooter’ and sports games and are much more likely to become deeply absorbed in the play.
-Younger games players are influenced to play particular games by peer pressure and word of mouth, but negative press coverage for a game will significantly increase its take up.
-People play games to escape from every day life and to escape to a world of adventure without risk which is under the control of the gamer, unlike the real world.
-Games provide a sense of achievement and are active, unlike television and films which are passive. However, games are better at developing action than building character and as such gamers tend to care less about the storyline than making progress in the game.
-gamers appear to forget they are playing games less readily than film goers forget they are watching a film because they have to participate in the game for it to proceed. They appear to non-games players to be engrossed in what they are doing, but, they are concentrating on making progress, and are unlikely to be emotionally involved.
-Gamers claim that playing games is mentally stimulating and that playing develops hand eye coordination.
-Violence in games, in the sense of eliminating obstacles, is built into the structure of some games and is necessary to progress through the game. It contributes to the tension because gamers are not just shooting, they are vulnerable to being shot and most gamers are concentrating on their own survival rather than the damage they are inflicting on the characters in the game. While there is an appeal in being able to be violent without being vulnerable to the consequences which similar actions in real life would create, gamers are aware that they are playing a game and that it is not real life.
-Gamers are aware that violence in games is an issue and younger players find some of the violence upsetting, particularly in games rated for adults. There is also concern that in some games wickedness prevails over innocence. However, most gamers are not seriously concerned about violence in games because they think that the violence on television and in films is more upsetting and more real.
-Gamers are virtually unanimous in rejecting the suggestion that video games encourage people to be violent in real life or that they have become desensitised. They see no evidence in themselves or their friends who play games that they have become more violent in real life. As one participant said: “I no more feel that I have actually scored a goal than I do that I have actually killed someone. I know it’s not real. The emphasis is on achievement.”
-Non-games playing parents are concerned about the amount of time their children, particularly boys, spend playing games and would prefer that they were outside in the fresh air. However, they are more concerned about the ‘stranger-danger’ of internet chat rooms. While the violence in games surprises them and concerns some of them, they are confident that their children are well balanced enough to not be influenced by playing violent games.
-While parents agree that there should be regulation of games some are happy to give their children adult games because they are “only games”.

And here's a little quote from David Cooke, Director of the BBFC:
"The element of interactivity in games carries some weight when we are considering a video game. We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality. People who do not play games raise concerns about their engrossing nature, assuming that players are also emotionally engrossed. This research suggests the opposite; a range of factors seems to make them less emotionally involving than film or television. The adversaries which players have to eliminate have no personality and so are not real and their destruction is therefore not real, regardless of how violent that destruction might be. This firm grasp on reality seems to extend to younger players, but this is no reason to allow them access to adult rated games, as they themselves often admit that they find the violence in games like Manhunt very upsetting. Parents should not treat video games in the same way they would board games. We will continue to examine very carefully those games which come to us, to flag any concerns we have and, if necessary, to use our statutory powers. "

Below is a link to the BBFC site. You can find this report under News-->Press-->"Playing Video Games - BBFC Publishes Research".
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Yeah, I know GP has already mentioned this report a long time ago, but not everyone may know about it. Sorry, for being redundant.

I've actually been thinking a bit on this issue of violent games and kids. Prepubescant kids, teenagers can take care of themselves.

Some kids are mature enough for mature games. Most aren't, because most kids are idiots. Current legislation is obviously not the answer, but something should probably be done. Maybe somebody should legislate up a law stating you have to take a test on your country's rating system of choice before you can buy a game, no matter your age. The gamers who want the game will buy the game and take the test. The parents who buy games without looking won't be bothered and will drag little Timmy away.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Jack,

Thus far, the courts don't seem to agree with your opinion on that.

That's not a shock, really.

@EZK

let's be fair now. Jack Thompson wants constitutional rights for only himself. everyone else can take a flying leap.

I was playing Guitar Hero 2 today. I wish that made me a super cool guitar hero in real life.

It just occurred to me- if games are supposedly turning me into a cold-blooded killer, does that mean that by playing the "Hot Coffee" aspects of GTA:SA I am becoming a better lover?

One can't be true without the other being true.

Memo to Steve Wright

The passive vs. interactive argument has to be one of the worst arguments for such legislation. By this logic, a person would have more of a problem with a kid play GTA than a kid watching a triple-X movie.

Also the APA study said that there is a CORRELATION between playing violent games and an increase in agressive behavior. Two thigs that politicians misunderstand:
1. Agressive behavior DOES NOT equal an increase in violence.
2. Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.

Another note to Wright:
Eight other jurisdictions tried this law and failed miserably.

@Jack Thompson (learn to capitalize your name, btw)
To quote the Oklahoma State football coach, "Get your facts straight".