CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
this is topic is in the politics section but there was an important update to the story which needs to be seen by all gamers
on Wednesday there was a Senate Hearing on Violence in video games ..here's what was discussed:
**** Psychologists and anti-game activists verbally spar with free-speech advocates, industry reps at Capitol Hill session
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/03/30/news_6146902.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6146902
first up to testify was Reverend Steve Strickland. Strickland's Police officer brother was murdered in 2003 by a young criminal named who claimed to have played Grand Theft Auto: Vice City before committing the killing. He had this to say about video games:
"As I gather more information on the games and the people who call themselves 'gamers,' I could see how someone like Devin, who at one minute did not put up any resistance ... [could take] my brother’s gun from him in the police station, shooting him and then killing two other men in a matter of less then two minutes," said Strickland. "A game such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City could and did teach him how to do this."
lay off the crack reverend
he had this to say about Jack Thompson:
"As a minister I deal with a lot of different issues and try to stay up and become educated on them but Jack opened up a whole other world to me that I did not even know existed," he said. "This is the violent video game world--a world that, as far as I am concerned, is straight from the pits of hell."
consorting with the devil is a sin Reverend ..lay off the crack and go to confession
Next up was Dr. Elizabeth Carll, chair of the Interactive Media Committee of the Media Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association (APA)
"there are many video games that are very helpful for children to facilitate medical treatment, increase learning, and promote pro-social behavior," she turned her attention to "games that include aggression, violence, and sexualized violence. "may have a negative impact on children," Carll went on to declare that "a comprehensive [APA] analysis of violence in interactive video game research suggests exposure increases aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and decreases helpful behavior."
she also asked that the game industry "link violent behaviors with negative social consequences" to promote better social behavior.
next up was Dr. David Bickham, a research scientist at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. He had this to say:
"there are reasons to believe that the influences of violent video games are stronger than those of other forms of screen violence." He pointed out that games are interactive, reward the player for completing tasks, and "require almost complete attention" from the player.
"video games are designed to be incredibly engaging and 'fun,' often leading children to slip deeply into a 'flow state' in which they may be at increased susceptibility to the messages of the game. Scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that children learn what video games teach, and often that lesson is doing violence."
next up ws the only member of the game industry at the event, Entertainment Software Rating Board president Patricia Vance (WTF? the industry couldnt be bothered to support their work?)
"the issues being discussed in today’s hearing are critically important, especially to parents." She also asserted that the "self-regulatory [ESRB] system offers a valuable, reliable and credible tool to make the right video game choices for their families."
She then went on to break down how 50 percent of the games released in 2005 were rated E for Everyone, 12 percent were rated E10+ for Everyone ages 10 and up, 24 percent were rated T for Teen, and 12 percent were rated M for Mature. She said the remaining two percent were made up of the fringe ratings EC for Early Childhood and AO for Adults Only."
"Naturally, the subject then turned to the most famous incident regarding the ESRB, last year's so-called "Hot Coffee" scandal regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Rather than deem it a failure, Vance asserted the incident "showed how effective and forceful an enforcement system we have at our disposal."
"I submit that there is no other industry self-regulatory system willing or capable of imposing such sweeping sanctions on its own members, which in this particular case resulted in the removal of a top-selling product from the market, a major loss of sales and a drop in shareholder value," she said
next up was Jeff Johnson, the Republican Assistant Majority Leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives
Johnson took a more serious tone when describing, somewhat inaccurately, a Grand Theft Auto game, presumably San Andreas. "The more creative and brutal you are in killing innocent people, the more respect you gain and the more points you score."
"Johnson went on to outline a bill he is sponsoring in the Minnesota legislature which would fine children $25 every time they attempt to buy with M-rated and AO-rated games. "In our Minnesota bill, we have crafted very narrow language in order to address the constitutional concerns that exist about content-based restrictions of speech," he said. "We are not restricting adults or parents in any way. If a parent is comfortable with their child playing adult video games, we don’t interfere with that."
the most imprtant testimony in my opinion came from video game attorney Paul Smith. he had this to say:
Throughout his testimony, Smith cited dozens of legal decisions, many of which were made in cases he personally argued. "In each case I have been involved with, as well as every other to consider the issue, courts have struck down as unconstitutional legal restrictions on minors’ access to 'violent' video games," he said.
The crux of Smith's testimony is that, like film or books, games are a form of expression. "Video games feature the artwork of leading graphic artists, as well as music--much of it original--that enhances the game's artistic expression in the same way as movie soundtracks," he said. "These games often contain storylines and character development as detailed as [and sometimes based on] books and movies. These games frequently involve familiar themes such as good versus evil, triumph over adversity, and struggle against corrupt powers."
The attorney went on to explain that "Every court to have considered the issue has found 'violent' video game laws would not pass constitutional muster because the government lacks a legitimate and compelling interest in restricting video game content. Under well-settled First Amendment principles, expression may not be censored on the theory that it will cause some recipient to act inappropriately, unless it falls into the narrow category of speech 'directed to inciting' and 'likely' to incite 'imminent' violence."
most dangerous testimony and what I believe to be the tactic of many anti-game legislators:
Kevin Saunders, a Professor of Law at Michigan State University had this to say:
"there are bases on which restrictions may overcome First Amendment limits and protect children from the dangers these products present." The first basis the professor cited "is to argue that sufficiently violent material, particularly when presented to children, may come within the obscenity exception to the First Amendment." After mentioning an Indiana case in which this approach worked, he also mentioned that the Supreme Court has never ruled that violent material cannot be restricted.
Saunders' second legal basis will likely prove the most troubling to gamers. This approach would argue that "is that video game play, like the play of pinball machines, is not an activity protected by the First Amendment." It would legally differentiate the expression of a game designer, which would be protected, from the playing of games, which would not be. As an example, he compared a sexually provocative dancer's movements, which is a performance and therefore expression, to a gamer playing in an arcade, which is not, even though others were watching him."
in other words ..technically a game cannot use the "freedom of speech" justification because it's not a creative expression but rather an interactive one
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/03/30/news_6146902.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6146902
the gaming industry is in trouble ***
on Wednesday there was a Senate Hearing on Violence in video games ..here's what was discussed:
**** Psychologists and anti-game activists verbally spar with free-speech advocates, industry reps at Capitol Hill session
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/03/30/news_6146902.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6146902
first up to testify was Reverend Steve Strickland. Strickland's Police officer brother was murdered in 2003 by a young criminal named who claimed to have played Grand Theft Auto: Vice City before committing the killing. He had this to say about video games:
"As I gather more information on the games and the people who call themselves 'gamers,' I could see how someone like Devin, who at one minute did not put up any resistance ... [could take] my brother’s gun from him in the police station, shooting him and then killing two other men in a matter of less then two minutes," said Strickland. "A game such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City could and did teach him how to do this."
lay off the crack reverend
he had this to say about Jack Thompson:
"As a minister I deal with a lot of different issues and try to stay up and become educated on them but Jack opened up a whole other world to me that I did not even know existed," he said. "This is the violent video game world--a world that, as far as I am concerned, is straight from the pits of hell."
consorting with the devil is a sin Reverend ..lay off the crack and go to confession
Next up was Dr. Elizabeth Carll, chair of the Interactive Media Committee of the Media Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association (APA)
"there are many video games that are very helpful for children to facilitate medical treatment, increase learning, and promote pro-social behavior," she turned her attention to "games that include aggression, violence, and sexualized violence. "may have a negative impact on children," Carll went on to declare that "a comprehensive [APA] analysis of violence in interactive video game research suggests exposure increases aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and decreases helpful behavior."
she also asked that the game industry "link violent behaviors with negative social consequences" to promote better social behavior.
next up was Dr. David Bickham, a research scientist at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. He had this to say:
"there are reasons to believe that the influences of violent video games are stronger than those of other forms of screen violence." He pointed out that games are interactive, reward the player for completing tasks, and "require almost complete attention" from the player.
"video games are designed to be incredibly engaging and 'fun,' often leading children to slip deeply into a 'flow state' in which they may be at increased susceptibility to the messages of the game. Scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that children learn what video games teach, and often that lesson is doing violence."
next up ws the only member of the game industry at the event, Entertainment Software Rating Board president Patricia Vance (WTF? the industry couldnt be bothered to support their work?)
"the issues being discussed in today’s hearing are critically important, especially to parents." She also asserted that the "self-regulatory [ESRB] system offers a valuable, reliable and credible tool to make the right video game choices for their families."
She then went on to break down how 50 percent of the games released in 2005 were rated E for Everyone, 12 percent were rated E10+ for Everyone ages 10 and up, 24 percent were rated T for Teen, and 12 percent were rated M for Mature. She said the remaining two percent were made up of the fringe ratings EC for Early Childhood and AO for Adults Only."
"Naturally, the subject then turned to the most famous incident regarding the ESRB, last year's so-called "Hot Coffee" scandal regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Rather than deem it a failure, Vance asserted the incident "showed how effective and forceful an enforcement system we have at our disposal."
"I submit that there is no other industry self-regulatory system willing or capable of imposing such sweeping sanctions on its own members, which in this particular case resulted in the removal of a top-selling product from the market, a major loss of sales and a drop in shareholder value," she said
next up was Jeff Johnson, the Republican Assistant Majority Leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives
Johnson took a more serious tone when describing, somewhat inaccurately, a Grand Theft Auto game, presumably San Andreas. "The more creative and brutal you are in killing innocent people, the more respect you gain and the more points you score."
"Johnson went on to outline a bill he is sponsoring in the Minnesota legislature which would fine children $25 every time they attempt to buy with M-rated and AO-rated games. "In our Minnesota bill, we have crafted very narrow language in order to address the constitutional concerns that exist about content-based restrictions of speech," he said. "We are not restricting adults or parents in any way. If a parent is comfortable with their child playing adult video games, we don’t interfere with that."
the most imprtant testimony in my opinion came from video game attorney Paul Smith. he had this to say:
Throughout his testimony, Smith cited dozens of legal decisions, many of which were made in cases he personally argued. "In each case I have been involved with, as well as every other to consider the issue, courts have struck down as unconstitutional legal restrictions on minors’ access to 'violent' video games," he said.
The crux of Smith's testimony is that, like film or books, games are a form of expression. "Video games feature the artwork of leading graphic artists, as well as music--much of it original--that enhances the game's artistic expression in the same way as movie soundtracks," he said. "These games often contain storylines and character development as detailed as [and sometimes based on] books and movies. These games frequently involve familiar themes such as good versus evil, triumph over adversity, and struggle against corrupt powers."
The attorney went on to explain that "Every court to have considered the issue has found 'violent' video game laws would not pass constitutional muster because the government lacks a legitimate and compelling interest in restricting video game content. Under well-settled First Amendment principles, expression may not be censored on the theory that it will cause some recipient to act inappropriately, unless it falls into the narrow category of speech 'directed to inciting' and 'likely' to incite 'imminent' violence."
most dangerous testimony and what I believe to be the tactic of many anti-game legislators:
Kevin Saunders, a Professor of Law at Michigan State University had this to say:
"there are bases on which restrictions may overcome First Amendment limits and protect children from the dangers these products present." The first basis the professor cited "is to argue that sufficiently violent material, particularly when presented to children, may come within the obscenity exception to the First Amendment." After mentioning an Indiana case in which this approach worked, he also mentioned that the Supreme Court has never ruled that violent material cannot be restricted.
Saunders' second legal basis will likely prove the most troubling to gamers. This approach would argue that "is that video game play, like the play of pinball machines, is not an activity protected by the First Amendment." It would legally differentiate the expression of a game designer, which would be protected, from the playing of games, which would not be. As an example, he compared a sexually provocative dancer's movements, which is a performance and therefore expression, to a gamer playing in an arcade, which is not, even though others were watching him."
in other words ..technically a game cannot use the "freedom of speech" justification because it's not a creative expression but rather an interactive one
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/03/30/news_6146902.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6146902
the gaming industry is in trouble ***
