 |
|
 |
 |
Posted by Paul Szynol on Sunday, December 29 @ 17:51:11 EST
|
|
|
 |
 |
NB: subsequent coverage is here.
In order to promote social responsiblity among video game retailers, the European Union plans to implement a video game classification system by April 2003. The categories will be 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+. Here is the interesting tid-bit: sellers of games that, because of violent content, are beyond classification will face fines and possibly imprisonment.
Report is here.
The article doesn't specify the European Union's standard of review for violent content. Nor is it clear whether the unrated games will have a legal market at all.
Incidentally, a couple of weeks ago I saw on TV the National Institute on Media and the Family's presentation on the same issue (ABC's coverage is here). The presentation included sequences from actual video games. Here's a flash from one game -- after having sex with a prostitute inside his car (virtual porn?), the player physically attacks her (the guy kicks the woman as she lies on the ground), and takes back the money he'd paid her. As a result, the narrator points out, his score increases.
Clearly, the impact of these video games on kids and cultural perceptions of women is negative. Criminalization of excess may be too draconian a measure, but some sort of regulation which prevents kids from getting access to these games is not at all out of place.
EDIT: A lot of the responses to the post are predicated on the mistaken assumption that this post promotes content regulation and censorship of video games. I don't really want to make this point over and over in each of my own replies, so I'm adding it here. The last sentence of the original post (above) contains the phrase "regulation which prevents kids from getting access to these games". It does not say "these games should not be created." My concern is distribution to inappropriate audiences, not regulation of content. Hope this helps.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Sunday, December 29 @ 18:27:42 EST | With games like Grand Theft Auto, parents are supposed to prevent thier children from getting thier hands on these games.
The ESRB in the US has a good rating system, but still games intended for people over 17 are getting into younger kids' hands. No amount of legal regulation, short of making games rated MA illegal, will stop this.
It is purely up to the parents of the kids and the parents of the kids' friends to limit exposure to this kind of game, same thing with movies. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Sunday, December 29 @ 18:34:20 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | I agree that parents have a central role to play in protecting their kids, but top-down regulation complements self-help. There is also expressive value in such regulation.
Paul Szynol
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Sunday, December 29 @ 20:04:37 EST | That GTA clip has been trotted out as the poster child for video game horrible-ness for two years. A small correction: the player's score does NOT increase by doing that. His MONEY increases, because he beats her up and takes it back. A small point, but a substantial difference, I think. The game is not in any way directly rewarding the act. You certainly don't have to do it, and there's no reward for doing it.
-- Rumor |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Sunday, December 29 @ 21:04:36 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | Thanks for the clarification. I agree that it makes some difference, but I'm not sure it's a very substantial difference. Whether with points or with virtual cash, the player gets rewarded for physically attacking her.
Paul |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, December 30 @ 05:26:23 EST | Futher clarification:
There is no 'score' in the game to speak of. However you do get your money back, your health increases (from to the sex), and I believe it helps your criminal rating go up.
.. oh yeah, and it's a hell of a lot of fun. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Monday, December 30 @ 05:58:27 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | dmoynihan,
a) There is a complementary relationship between self-help and regulation in this case. I never said this was a raison d'etre for further regulation, but I do think it's one reason among many for maintaining a regulatory scheme. Parental controls are insufficient precisely because, as you concede, kids continue to have access to video games--not because they can download cracked versions (which is a copyright issue), but because they can buy this stuff in stores. Increased regulation can fill in some of the gaps that parental ignorance and practical limitations inevitably leave exposed--not by altogether eliminating these games from the market, but by limiting the games' availability to inappropriate audiences. This approach parallels general regulations of distribution of "material which is harmful to minors", as the standard tagline reads.
b) Other media are regulated, so I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you against all regulation? Or do you think video games should be immune to regulation simply because "the market desires" them? I'm sure you realize that's an altogether specious argument--there is a market for guns, too, and for nuclear weapons, right?
c) What is "inaccurate and misleading" about the sequence that I described?
d) I hardly think these games, across the board, breed rampant misogyny, are bad, etc., etc. But there is something very disturbing about a video game that allows the male character to stand over a lying woman and repeatedly kick her in the crotch as she groans in pain. You don't think so?
paul |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Monday, December 30 @ 10:50:09 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | I think these games have a strong First Amendment right to be in the market. And I don't think that the gov't should impose content regulation on the video game industry. This has to do with distribution, generally, and distribution to minors, specifically--not content regulation. I think the subject matter is questionable, and I don't think kids should be exposed to it; but that claim doesn't affect video game makers' right to release this stuff in the first place.
As far as regulation in general is concerned: I'm typically against it, but there are definitely areas where I think some regulation is useful. Rating mechanisms and sale control, in this situation, I think can be helpful. In fact, even if we agree that parents have the primary responsibility for controlling their kids' access to adult materials, some objective notice system is necessary so that parents can, in fact, determine which games their kids can play. And that means some degree of regulation. If video game makers can self-regulate effectively, I'm all for gov't non-interference. From what I've heard, though, that hasn't been their practice. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Monday, December 30 @ 13:33:28 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | This is for D. Moynihan,
"When you're controlling distribution, you're controlling content."
There is a BIG analytical and often practical difference between controlling distribution and controlling content. In First Amendment parlance, it's the difference is between content-neutral regulation and content regulation. You're missing a huge point by not making this distinction. If you want to read up on the difference, I can recommend quite a few cases; there is a lot of jurisprudence in this area. So long as you fail to acknowledge that, though, we're just going to talk right past each other.
"Taking the time to print details of a game, removed from their context, but then not even getting the facts right, is misleading and rather deceptive, don't you think?"
What facts did I get wrong? What relevant context did I ignore? Everyone who read the post -- including you -- knew exactly what game I had in mind; I didn't even have to name it. Give me a break.
"I have not seen any conclusive evidence that video games kill people, harm people, or even cause individuals to indulge in innapropriate behavior, apart from your assesment that the images are disturbing."
You remind me of tobacco industry representatives who repeatedly claimed that they have no hard proof that smoking causes cancer.
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Monday, December 30 @ 14:10:25 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | One point about the realism of the game: you can obviously attack other characters, and the prostitute is simply one among many potential targets, and therefore isn't singled out for victimization, etc. I am sure, though, that there are many, many things that we can do in real life which the video game character cannot do--violent and non-violent. Ultimately, then, the character's capacities are a function of conscious design, not ontological limitations or realism. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
regulation of distribution vs. regulation of content (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Monday, December 30 @ 15:54:25 EST | Given the example, I must point out that there is only "potential violence" in the game since it is not required in order to accomplish the goals of the game. How do you classify "potential" anything in a rating system? Given that one player can play and never commit a violent act (as previously posted I have never played the game and never will) and another player can go from one violent act to another? Let's contrast that with another real world system, movie ratings and TV for that matter. Movies are a "fixed" product and are rated based on that. On the other hand how many people have been carded trying to buy a "r" rated movie? Given that it is quite common for movies nowadays to depict assault, battery, rape, and other anti-social behaviors why is there not government regulation of the movie industry? I mean other than the fact that hollywood contributes heavily to political campaigns? As far as I know, TV's, VCR's and theaters heavily outnumber computers/game consoles. I realize that "two wrongs don't make a right" (tm) but what is the point of furthur eroding first ammendment rights through regulations which historically are poorly enforced (if at all) and highly subjective (who decides what rating a particular product recieves) and subject to a result which does not provide equal protection to all. E.G. A small companies product may recieve a more restrictive rating than a large company based solely on political clout.
Additionally, how do you regulate a content based rating system in a content-neutral fashion? Bottom line, certain depictions will be rated "bad" and others "not bad" while other industries have no regulation on similar content. Before we go fixing the current system, shouldn't we determine if it is really broken? If we determine that the current system is broken, shouldn't we fix the entire system? E.G. If depiction of violent acts is harmfull to society should not all media which depicts violence be subject to the same (not similar) regulations?
I do not advocate regulation as indicated in my previous post (bad, bad, bad government). I do however advocate someone having a position apply that position fairly accross the board to all particulars where the issue exists.
Regards |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Violence is as American as Apple Pie (Score: 1) by Seth_Finkelstein on Monday, December 30 @ 18:29:21 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://sethf.com/ |
Violence is as American as Apple Pie
-- H. Rap Brown
C'mon, as a matter of US law, this is hardly even debatable
http://www.mediacoalition.org/legislative/2002/fl_sb_730.htm
Every court that has addressed this issue has held that violent
content, including criminal activity, without exception, is
constitutionally protected speech. American Amusement Machine Ass?n
v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. den. 70 USLW 3162
(Oct. 29, 2001) enjoined enforcement of a city ordinance that limited
minors? access to violent video games. Davis-Kidd Booksellers, Inc.
v. McWherter, 886 S.W. 2d 705 (Tenn. 1993) struck down a restriction
on the sale to minors of material containing "excess violence." Video
Software Dealers Assn. v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992) held
that "unlike obscenity, violent expression is protected by the First
Amendment." Eclipse Enterprise, Inc. v. Gulotta, 134 F.3d 63 (2d
Cir. 1997) found unconstitutional a county ordinance barring the sale
to minors of trading cards that depict or describe "heinous crimes" in
Nassau County, New York. State v. Johnson, 343 So. 2d 705, 710
(La. 1977) declared that prohibiting the sale of violent materials to
minors exceeded the limits placed on regulation of obscene materials
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448
F. Supp. 306, 400 (N.D. Ohio 1977), while remanded on other grounds,
overturned a statute defining as "harmful to minors" material
describing or representing "extreme or bizarre violence."
If one wants to address the causes of violence in society,
real, physical, assault and battery on children, would be the best target. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Monday, December 30 @ 20:46:36 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | "If one wants to address the causes of violence in society, real, physical, assault and battery on children, would be the best target."
It would be *ONE* target, Seth. Focusing on another problem doesn't eliminate the first problem--it merely neglects it.
I must say, it's a little surprising to see that not even a single person responded with some concern about this. First Amendment arguments are not incompatible with the recognition that this sort of content is troubling--even if, on constitutional grounds, it evades regulation.
At any rate, it's been, uh, "fun". Thankfully, I had the right of reply.
Here are two cases that sanctioned regulations of violent video games. The summaries are from Lexis.
Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1126.
"A county ordinance restricting the sale of violent video games was held to be constitutional where the violent video games were not a protected form of speech, the county showed a compelling regulatory interest, and the ordinance was not vague."
American Amusement Mach. Ass'n v. Cottey, 115 F. Supp. 2d 943
"Indianapolis, Ind., Gen. Ordinance 72-2000 restricts the display and operation of coin-operated amusement machines (primarily video games) deemed harmful to minors if they include either strong sexual content or graphic violence. Under the Ordinance, children may not play or watch such games without a parent's permission. Plaintiffs, in the business of manufacturing, distributing, or displaying video games, sought preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of the Ordinance, arguing that the Ordinance's restrictions on games with "graphic violence" were content-based restrictions on speech that violated U.S. Const. amend. I and that the Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief against its enforcement. The court held that, because the City had met its obligation to define with reasonable specificity the violent material it sought to regulate, plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the definition was unconstitutionally vague." |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by rswetenh on Tuesday, December 31 @ 05:35:40 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.qlinks.net | Sorry to spoil a good story, but it is simply not true that "the European Union plans to implement a video game classification system by April 2003." A fortiori, there will not be EU legislation saying that "sellers of games that, because of violent content, are beyond classification will face fines and possibly imprisonment".
You should read the original story in the Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,866224,00.html . This is a bit more accurate than the Inquirer's version.
A self-regulatory scheme called PEGI has been put in place by the games industry with a rating system and a mixture of self-rating with a degree of third-party rating by the Dutch body NICAM, which won a call for tenders to do this.
The intention of the scheme is to allow a single rating for all 15 Member States.
The legal requirements remain a matter for the Member States. Only some member states have laws requiring games to be rated (Finland, Portugal).
Germany is in the throes of anguished re-examination of the rules following a high-school mass killing at Erfurt, and has not joined the scheme - the existing German industry body USK will carry on as before.
It is possible that the UK might introduce legislation along the lines indicated in the Observer report - I have no privilegd information about UK government plans. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 31 @ 09:16:33 EST | Paul,
Taking just the portion of your article "I find it disturbing" I will concurr that much of the content in video games do not meet my personal approval. There are many games that we (my wife and I) will not permit our children to buy or play. There, feel vindicated? Now, for the rest of that story nobody died and left me god. Just because something does not meet my approval doesn't give me the rigght to impose my views on others, nor does it give them the right to impose their opinions upon me. Government has a bad track record as a surrogate parent (or at least that's my opinion). Unfortunately, last I checked we don't sign up for what regulation we concurr with, we get to endure it all. Perhaps that's an idea worth pursuing? Regulation ala cart? Select from this list which rules, regs, and benefits you desire from your government and perhaps pay taxes based on those selections?
In any event, it generated lively discussion.
Regards
|
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Tuesday, December 31 @ 13:04:54 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | Please stop overstating my argument. I never suggested that the gov't impose its view on you or anyone else. And no, I don't feel "vindicated". I am simply concerned to see how numb we've grown to certain types of imagery. Since you mentioned that you don't want your kids playing certain games, at any rate, I'm curious, how do you determine which games are OK? |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Violence and image versus reality (Score: 1) by Seth_Finkelstein on Wednesday, January 01 @ 11:35:43 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://sethf.com/ | Paul, although it would be safe and pleasant, I decline the argument path
of hand-wringing over the debasement of society's morals and the
potential corruption of youth - even with the variant of acknowledging that
gol'durn First Amendment, but then declaiming Can't-Something-Be-Done.
I can't speak for anyone else, or what sort of reaction you should expect
in general (my guess is that varies with the audience, and young single
males, who are the core audience of these sorts of discussion forums,
aren't going to be your best demographic).
I am considering your argument. I'm responding that
there's too much of an appeal to emotion over fact here. The cause
of violence IN kids is, I believe, overwhelmingly - so much so as to
render any image effect insignificant - physical violence ON kids.
It is not a matter of one problem versus another. Rather, it strikes me
as going after a convenient target of punditry, instead of a root cause.
There's always going to be someone, somewhere, pushing the edge of
revulsion, for gross-out effect if nothing else. It is easy to use the
ugly image as a rallying-point for the supposed decline and fall of the
Republic. Anyone who objects can simply be ideologically bludgeoned
with the ugliness. But that doesn't make it a meaningful cause.
By the way, I believe "American Amusement Mach. Ass'n v. Cottey"
is the case which was overturned on appeal as
"American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick". I didn't bother to
research the other one you mentioned.
Seth Finkelstein |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, January 02 @ 10:05:19 EST | Paul,
First, in order to accomplish point of sales verification of eligibility to purchase would have an impact on electronic distribution/sale. In short, how can amazon verify that an order for a particular game comes from a person of legal age to procure that game. So government intervention in this market would potentially impact persons of legal age in their ability to procure via a range of channels. For a similar experience to what you're advocating, go buy a bottle of scotch.
As for how we determine what is acceptable for our children, mature is out. A teen rating results in us researching the game. We d/l a demo if available and review that, we review any materials we can find on the web, etc. Screenshots, demos and the like are usually available in adaquate qty for us to make a descision. If it appears marginal or we cannot find adaquate information and it appears that the game is possibly marginal then we err on the side of caution. Not allowing a child to play a particular game will not kill them. This is not to say that playing a particular game will or anything like that, just that in the overall importance of things denying a particular game to my child is well within my rights as a parent and is fact a duty of the job.
I feel it should be pointed out that we find it easier to make an "informed" descision about video games than about movies and tv shows. There is simply more information available. Since this is the way it's always been our children do not find it unusual. Like with all things there are occasionally disagreements but since we put in the time to "justify" our descisions there is less conflict than one might expect.
Regards |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: Video Games and Violence (Score: 1) by paul szynol on Friday, January 03 @ 00:27:30 EST (User Info | Send a Message) | Sounds like you rely on some sort of regulation to determine what games are OK -- the "mature" rating, for instance, is, as you say, out. So, why oppose regulation of this sort? Do you think movies should be unregulated, cigarettes and beer sold to minors, rent control removed, and gun control abolished? Some regulation is necessary and OK--the very existence of a legal system presumes regulation. Too much regulation may be bad. Some regulation is inevitable in complex society. It's a question of degree, not kind. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|