Video Game Voters Network: Learn More: What's Being Said

What's Being Said

Politicians play games, win fame
Kansas City Star
Mike Hendricks
March 31, 2006

Once again we're hearing how video games turn our kids into glassy-eyed sociopaths.

Yeah, well. It's a cyclical story, almost always driven by politicians trying to show how moral they are.

Other times we hear how music lyrics are also rotting the brains of America's youth. Rap and hip-hop mostly, but back in the day it was "the heathen rock 'n' roll."

More recently, the Voices of Decency smacked down Howard Stern and his potty mouth and Janet Jackson and her exposed whatchamacallit.

Now it's video games' turn again.

"Today's video games are more graphic, more realistic and more barbaric," Sam Brownback, the Republican senator from Kansas, was quoted as saying on Thursday's front page.

The occasion was yet another of Brownback's Capitol Hill hearings in his long-running campaign to stem our moral freefall.

His latest tack would have states prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors.

As it so happens, just such an effort is under way in Jeff City, where lawmakers this week also heard testimony on video game violence.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Harris of Columbia, would make it a misdemeanor to sell to minors video games rated by the game industry as "M" for "mature" or "AO" for "adults only."

Did I mention Harris is a Democrat?

Just goes to show you that the steep climb to the moral high ground has, since the days of Tipper Gore, been a bipartisan affair. Even Hillary - yes, that Hillary - has a bill in Congress that would shovel $90 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a study on whether violent video games cause the real thing.

Well, I'm betting you're as heartened by all this as I am.

But here's the thing: It's a huge waste of time and money.

Yes, the politicians are absolutely correct about the content in today's video games.

There is enough blood, gore and anti-social behavior in some of the more popular games these days to - how do I phrase this? - to fill a Hollywood movie.

Even "The Godfather" is itself now a video game, and you can personally see to it that Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

But should the government prosecute shop clerks for selling such games to kids?

Might as well ask when we're going to start jailing ticket-takers at the local multiplex when kids sneak into the R movies.

Or shut down Time Warner for carrying free porn on the Internet.

Not going to happen - and the First Amendment will be but one of the more significant stumbling blocks.

Still, it's good for the politicians. The headlines will look good in their brochures at election time.

Just so they don't forget that, ultimately, it's we parents who should and ultimately will decide what kind of games, movies and CDs our kids bring into the home.

And if we think it's over-the-top objectionable or our kids can't handle it, out the stuff goes.

We know our kids better than Sam Brownback does.

Plus, most of the kids I've talked with about this topic over the years, including my own three, all seem more than able to separate what they see on the screen from what they know as real life.

"It's only a game," mine keep reminding me.

Bright kids.

If only some of these politicians were as smart.

Back to Top

Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over
Los Angeles Times
Steven Johnson
July 27, 2005

"Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." Of all the games that kids play, which ones require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I suspect most families will find that it's a relatively even match. Then sit down and try to play "Halo 2" with the kids. You'll be lucky if you survive 10 minutes.

The great secret of today's video games that has been lost in the moral panic over "Grand Theft Auto" is how difficult the games have become. That difficulty is not merely a question of hand-eye coordination; most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives.

In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow."

Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over
Los Angeles Times
Steven Johnson
July 27, 2005

"Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which challenges the mind more zoning out to the lives of fictional characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims?"

On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including "Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. Perhaps, [Senator Clinton's] investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.

Many juvenile crimes such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?"

Rule of the Games
Los Angeles Times
December 28, 2005

"When it comes to regulating violent video games, lawmakers are like slow-fingered players who never find the key to the next level. Last week, a federal judge in San Jose placed a temporary hold on a new California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell certain types of violent video games to minors.

"The courts have been unanimous on the issue, with U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte's ruling being the sixth to find such laws unconstitutional.

"The issue is free speech... The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states had a 'rational basis' for barring shopkeepers from selling sexually explicit magazines to minors, regardless of the 1st Amendment. But the courts have never applied the same rationale to explicit depictions of violence.

"The standard for laws against violent movies, lyrics or games is much higher: States must demonstrate that they have a compelling interest in limiting violent expressions, and that they're using the least restrictive means to do the job. States cannot ban game sales to minors unless they can show a strong link between game playing and violent behavior, which has yet to be done to any judge's satisfaction...

"Given the courts' approach, however, it's time for lawmakers and game manufacturers to find another way to address the issue. The industry has a more detailed ratings system than Hollywood's, as well as agreements with numerous retailers to enforce those ratings. And the next generation of game consoles will enable parents to use the ratings to limit which games their kids can play.

"Ultimately, it is a parent's duty to keep children away from inappropriate video games. Lawmakers who have tried to shift that duty to store clerks are now 0 for 6, and their average isn't likely to improve no matter how many times they swing."

A video game law gets zapped
Chicago Tribune
December 6, 2005

"When the General Assembly debated a bill to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, some unusual discussions ensued. Noting that the measure barred images of human-on-human violence, one lawmaker asked if human-on-space-creature mayhem was OK.

"'Killing an alien wouldn't fall under the bill,' Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Aurora) replied. But on further questioning, she said, 'If it was an alien that pretended to be a human, I guess then it's human. Then it would fall under the bill because, it's human against human.'

"It may sound easy to write a law that would prevent juveniles from gaining access to grossly inappropriate video games featuring carnage or sex, but defining terms can be hard...

"Last week, though, a U.S. District Court [struck] down the law for violating the 1st Amendment...

"What was forbidden was so uncertain... that some material that clearly enjoys constitutional protection would be covered--and a lot more would be affected by sellers' choosing to err on the side of caution. Scenes of violence play a prominent role in much of the world's great literature, including Homer and Shakespeare, and adolescents neither can nor should be completely protected from them. Likewise with eros. No one would think of outlawing the sale of 'The Odyssey' or 'Macbeth' to high-school students."

"The court...found that such a restriction on freedom of expression would be permissible only if it were precisely designed to prevent a serious harm, which this one was not. Though the legislature blamed graphic games for stimulating aggressive behavior, District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly found that scientific research has not established a connection. In any event, he concluded, 'If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the state."

"After the decision came down, the governor vowed to continue 'this crusade against violent video games,' possibly by offering new legislation and by trying to 'stigmatize' retailers who allow kids access to such fare. But he'd be better advised to work on helping parents get the information they need to make their own judgments. In the end, the state can't do a better job than parents of deciding what is good for their kids, and it shouldn't try."

Laws are unenforceable
The National Law Journal
By Robert D. Richards
May 16, 2005

"Why lawmakers across the country are suddenly smitten with the idea of curbing violent videogames may be somewhat of a mystery, but the answer could lie in the fact that the topic makes good drama-and skilled politicians know how to use drama to their advantage.

...It's tough for government to know when to stop [censoring]. It's what lawyers call the "slippery slope." Once one form of expression is halted, the government feels compelled to go after similar types.

So why waste time creating measures that cannot withstand a constitutional challenge? That's a question lawmakers should reflect upon before joining the lynch mob against violent videogames, regardless of the drama it creates. While the laws might be popular among some family organizations-and politically expedient at the moment-they cannot be enforced. Time and taxpayer dollars are better spent encouraging parents to take a peek at what electronic games their children are playing, use the guidelines that already are available and make decisions that are appropriate for their families."

Don't waste money appealing video game law
Herald & Review (IL)
December 7, 2005

"A federal judge ruled last week what most of us already knew - the state's new video game law is unconstitutional...

"[U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly] said the law would interfere with First Amendment rights of free speech, something that can be done only for compelling reasons, such as preventing imminent violence. The state would also have to show the law was the only way to achieve the state's goal and that it was as narrowly written as possible.

"Kennelly was saying what many have been saying for months. In fact, many legislators who voted for the bill did so although they admitted it was probably unconstitutional. Those legislators felt that it would be politically difficult to defend the vote.

"So, thanks to the governor and a bunch of spineless legislators, the state has been spending tax dollars defending a hopeless case in court.

"The bad news is that Blagojevich isn't ready to admit this law is a loser. He vowed to appeal the ruling.

"'This battle is not over,' he said in a statement. 'Parents should be able to expect that their kids will not have access to excessively violent and sexually explicit video games without their permission.'

"Parents should find that last statement insulting. The governor is saying that parents aren't strong enough, smart enough or vigilant enough to keep inappropriate video games out of their children's hands. He's saying that the state, not parents, will determine which video games are appropriate and which ones aren't.

"The governor is also saying that he's willing to waste more taxpayer dollars on this unnecessary piece of legislation.

"...We encourage all parents to watch, or play along, when the children are playing games. It doesn't take long to figure out what's appropriate for your child and what isn't. Parents don't need the state telling them what's appropriate and what isn't. And we don't need the governor throwing good money after bad by pursuing an appeal of his foolish law."

Video-Game Vice Squad
Los Angeles Times
By Gerard Jones
May 31, 2005

"We are in another of America's periodic prohibitionist crusades against entertainment forms that offend adult sensibilities, and once again our leaders seem determined to miss the point that each one of those crusades has already made: They don't work. In fact, they always backfire.

In the 1950s, the targets were comic books; in the 1930s, gangster movies. Politicians and reformers have launched lesser forays against gangster rap, Elvis, slapstick cartoons, the Three Stooges, jazz and just about every other noisy product that comes off the cultural fringes to seize people aged 13 to 30 and disgust their parents.

The pattern is reliable. A new medium or genre appears, selling itself partly with shock value and the things young people like which inevitably include bad taste.

There is a cry of horror from teachers and parents who wish to believe that adolescents won't think about sex and gore unless they are "exposed" to them. Then research is created to demonstrate the medium's negative effects, usually by social scientists who already dislike the offending material and design studies that seek only the negative, never the positive....

Finally, the legislators move in, for no fruit hangs lower in the political orchard than entertainment loved by kids and nonvoting geeks in their 20s....

Access to video games is restricted by the same types of ratings and retail policies as R-rated movies. It's a porous system, but one that most of us have accepted as good enough. We don't need laws making shock entertainment look sexier and more powerful than it is. We don't need our police wasting their resources putting careless Best Buy clerks in prison for selling games.

And we don't need our lawmakers throwing themselves into an unwinnable war against the eternal forces of adolescent bad taste. Grown-up reality should be enough for them."

Video patrol is for parents - Editorial
Muskogee Daily Phoenix (OK)
December 10, 2005

"...State Rep. Fred Morgan, R-Oklahoma City, stated in a column in the Phoenix on Dec. 5 that he will introduce a proposed ban, similar to an Illinois law, next year.

"Morgan referred to statements by a licensed psychologist who said game violence spills over into action.

"If that were completely true then schools would be havens for violence. But a national report just last month stated from 1992 to 2002, school crime rate was cut in half, and that figure mirrors a national trend outside schools crime is down 30 percent.

"Violent behavior cannot be explained simply by the programs people watch or the games they play. A few people will re-enact things portrayed in films and games, but their problems and the motivations for violence go deeper than a video game...

"What this state needs more than a video ban something other states and Illinois courts have already declared unconstitutional are parents involved with their children. If parents don't want their children to watch something, then they should stop them."

A More Mature Approach to Video-Game Violence
By Paul K. McMasters, Syndicated Essayist
February 20, 2005

"...Those who want to regulate the distribution of video games face some major hurdles, aside from the popularity and appeal of the games. First is the Constitution. Courts have made it clear that video games are forms of expression deserving the same First Amendment protection as television, movies or books. Further, they have rejected the argument that there is a causal relationship between video violence and real violence.

...Rather than attempting to dictate taste and behavior through law, politicians and activists might focus more of their energy on public-awareness campaigns, the independent rating system, and encouraging vendors to "card" more unaccompanied minors. That would be a much better way to go, not only because it's First Amendment-friendly but also because it works.

...When dealing with expression that some of us don't like, it is all too tempting to exploit fear and ignorance. It is all too easy to propose laws to ban it. It is not easy, however, to decide who has the maturity to distinguish fantasy violence from that appearing on the nightly news or in any number of professional sports.

Those decisions shouldn't be left to a legislator, a jury, a merchant or a police officer. They should be left to a parent."

Gov's Video Game Crusade Doesn't Rate a New Law
Chicago Sun Times
December 20, 2004

"...[Governor Blagojevich] seems to be playing political leapfrog in hopping to an attention-grabbing solution without establishing there is a problem legislators need to fix.... If Blagojevich had a stronger case against them, or if this were a slower political season, he might be justified in expending the time and energy to deal with this problem. But with such pressing matters as the CTA's threatened service cuts and the need for reforms in medical malpractice insurance and school funding, lawmakers have more crucial things to concentrate on.

That's especially true considering the inability of other states to get past First Amendment strictures and pass similar video game laws. It's not that big a jump from criminalizing the distribution of video games reasonable parents want to shield their kids from to criminalizing the distribution of controversial videos or recordings or books with artistically redeemable violence or sexual content. History tells us today's blot on society may be tomorrow's harmless act."

Monitoring Games is Up to Parents
Daily Southtown (IL)
December 19, 2004

"We can't argue that these explicitly violent or sexual games are appropriate for children. We don't understand why parents would permit their young children to play a game where they score points by decapitating an animated character. But we don't believe it's the state's job to act as parents or to tell businessmen that it's their job to make parents responsible. And the governor is going to run into legal problems; the courts have ruled repeatedly that laws targeting the content of video game violence violate the First Amendment.... The bottom line is that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their kids are doing and to set boundaries and rules about what is appropriate."

Taming Video Games
Toledo Blade
December 21, 2004

"...[T]here's a problem with his proposed plan to deny access to the material to children: it is likely to be struck down as an unconstitutional violation of free speech.... [Governor Blagojevich's bill] won't address a major part of the problem, which is that many adults - including parents - let children buy or rent such videos, or they purchase them and hand them over to their children. The tragedy is that parents aren't more vigilant about what their children view. Remember, too, that these bills wouldn't do anything to curb the behavior of anyone whose 18th birthday was yesterday. This isn't a wonderful state of affairs. But it's one that calls for community responsibility, not infringing on free speech."

With Eyes Wide Shut
The Washington Times
By Deborah Simmons
March 11, 2005

"'Do violent video games make people violent?' my youngest daughter, Andrea, asked the other night. 'No,' her dad and I said simultaneously. 'Unless,' I added, 'there are no militating circumstances. And it's up to the parents to be the enforcers.' The same can be asked and said of rap music. My question to you adults is: Are you paying attention?

We knowingly open impressionable minds to such influences by indulging them with MP3 players, CD players, XBox and the like. Low-income, low-tech families tune out the realities of the constant one-note messages and sexual innuendo in rap music and videos. Then we turn around and ask Philip why he abuses little sister Elizabeth.

We turn off our moral compass and let the V-chip do its thing.... Do we know what our children are listening to? Do we know what videos they are watching and what games they are playing? Do we know whether they are indulging in sexual chatter online?...

With our eyes wide shut, we are shirking our responsibility. It wasn't OK to let Big Bird and Mr. Rogers raise an entire generation. And it's not OK to let video games such as Max Payne, Star Fox and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon raise the next. There's a balance to be struck, and we simply are not holding up our end of the bargain by trying to strike it."

Misstep on video violence
USA Today
June 6, 2005

"A bill banning the sale of such games to anyone younger than 18 is awaiting the governor's signature in Illinois. A similar proposal is moving in the Michigan Legislature. The issue has been raised this year in at least nine other states and the District of Columbia.

But to what useful end?

[T]hey're probably not constitutional, anyway. Courts have ruled that today's sophisticated video games are protected as creative expression. If communities want to limit access, they must show overriding evidence that the games pose a public threat.

That evidence does not exist.

[Parents are] getting some help. The game industry's rating system classifies games in six categories.... Also, newer models of popular games include parental controls that can block their use for age-inappropriate games.

Manufacturers have announced an expanded ratings-education program, and major retailers are tightening their restrictions on sales to minors.

There will always be a market for the dark, tasteless, even the outrageous, and parents ought to keep kids away from it. But even with the best intentions of legislators, the problem is beyond their reach.

New laws are likely to give parents only the false impression that someone else is solving that problem for them."

The Video Game Paper Tiger
By Karen Sternheimer, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Southern California

"...[C]onnecting video games with youth violence isn't so simple. For one, since the explosion of the gaming industry in the past decade, youth violence has plummeted. During this time we have witnessed double-digit declines in juvenile arrests for violent offenses. Nationally, homicide arrest rates for minors declined nearly 65 percent from 1992 to 2002.

Additionally, dozens of studies have been done trying to assess the link between video games and violence. Most attempts at measuring aggression in a controlled setting are contrived and questionable.

...[I]t is far easier to challenge simulated shooting, supposedly in child's play, than real shooting with real guns. Yes, some of the highly publicized school shooters did play video games. But many people do and never go on a rampage. It was the shooters' ability to get their hands on real guns - often purchased by adults that we should worry about.

The proposed California legislation and other bills like it that focus on video games are based on fear, not facts."

A bill of rights for parents, not the feds
Philadelphia Inquirer
By Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert
January 4, 2006

In the waning weeks of 2005, four different federal courts across the country issued rulings that, viewed collectively, reinforce the right of parents to make private choices regarding their children's lives, free from government-imposed intermeddling.

While these cases should be heralded by pro-family organizations that routinely rail against government interference into the parenting process, they instead are lambasted by these same groups, as well as some sympathetic lawmakers who find political expediency in catering to a small yet vociferous faction of the electorate...

When it comes to video games depicting images of violence, it is somewhat easier to sympathize with legislators wanting to impose government-mandated ratings on the games and to prohibit minors from purchasing them. Many adults, after all, would find the content of some games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas offensive, disagreeable or repulsive.

But that is precisely the point. Since we cannot all agree on what speech is offensive, disagreeable or repulsive, we should not allow the government to impose its determinations and ratings about those subjects on consumers, including parents.

...When the government imposes its own ratings on video games and determines what's appropriate entertainment for minors, it has stepped firmly and deeply into the culture wars and interfered with decisions affecting the First Amendment freedom of speech. Once again, the proper arena for setting the bounds of personal culture is neither the courts nor the schools nor the legislatures. Rather, it is the home, and the right and duty falls to parents. We should trust parents to make their own decisions about what games their children should or shouldn't be allowed to play.

Video games: Reality or fantasy?
The Mississippi Press
By Wendell Thomas
March 15, 2005

How can people say a video game leads children to crime, or even worse, murder? How can someone say it is the game's fault that their child, or friend, was driven to the brink of insanity?

It comes from an abdication of responsibility among the parents of the children who play violent video games. The parents should pay attention to their children when they need it -- before the child makes a mistake.

...Everybody likes different types of games. Some like sappy, cheesy stories; some like action; some like violence. We all have our own tastes, and we all know what is right and what is wrong. Or at least we should.

They put those ratings on there for that reason, just like a movie. At one point in time, movies were generic, simple, with no rating and for all to see. But now, you have everything from toddler to adult -- and then some. So why does no one bother to think about a rating on a game?

...It is nonsense for parents and other 'mature' figures to place the blame on a video game, a form of entertainment, rather than take the blame themselves. It seems parents seek the easy answer; the one that makes them look like they were right when they purchased this game for their child.

...All of the parents and "professionals" out there, who put the blame on video games, should open their eyes and see who is really to blame: the ones who should be responsible for what their children do, play and watch. Don't point the finger at the creator, publisher, or supplier.

The games were made for entertainment -- not to "train" someone to kill or rob.

Problem Solving: The Better Side of Computer Games - Commentary
Washington Post
By Sebastian Mallaby
December 26, 2005

This year my knowing 11-year-old was told to write to Santa Claus, partly to keep the fun going for his younger siblings and partly because it forced him to write. He seized the opportunity to ask, naturally, for a computer game...I bought "Age of Empires III" with a clear parental conscience. The new conventional wisdom says virtual games are healthy, enriching even. I'm thinking of trying them...

Some games feature academic content. Spinach-pushing parents can buy games that teach algebra or engineering, and "America's Army," a game with some 6 million players, includes an opportunity to learn how to be a medic. Even the rampantly entertaining "Age of Empires III" conveys a sense of history. You begin at the dawn of the 16th century, and work your way into the mid-19th; you can choose among eight European civilizations; and you'd better build up the technological base of your home city if you want your empire to flourish...

Edward Castronova of Indiana University has just come out with "Synthetic Worlds," a book on the economics of...online universes. He explains that currencies in games such as "RuneScape" are subject to inflation: In a shamelessly populist bid to keep players happy, game masters tend to be monetary doves. Players can earn money by hacking down trees or killing monsters. Because there's no limit to the number of monsters and trees available, the money supply grows steadily.

When I first heard of this insight, I went home triumphantly to tell my son. He listened politely and told me that I'd only scratched the surface. Sure, the supply of money grows steadily, but the supply of swords and magic herbs grows, too, so prices move in both directions. Waves of aspiring bowmakers periodically flood into the industry, driving log prices upward. This pushes established bowmakers to quit, so log prices collapse. Although he didn't use the phrase, my son was describing a classic boom-bust cycle.

[G]ames that teach 11-year-olds about inflation or history can't be all evil, and they may be an improvement on Clue or Monopoly for all I know. Besides, kids clearly enjoy them. That surely ought to count for something.

Video game violence laws do little good
San Jose Mercury News
By Miriam Schulman
December 9, 2005

"What do you get when you cross the holiday shopping season with the season when politicians put out feelers for a possible presidential run? A spate of legislative proposals to control the sale of video games...

"I think these games make too-easy targets. Elected officials and parent watchdog groups from across the ideological spectrum can make political hay by decrying them without adding to clear thinking about the effects of video play and whether/how to regulate it.

"...[T]hese proposed regulations assume a world of solitary game playing at consoles controlled by parents. In fact, video games are social activities. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that nearly all the children they polled played their video games with friends, siblings or other relatives...

"...So what is a parent to do? Accept that whatever regulations legislators devise...will not solve your problem. Your children will be exposed to more sex and violence than you would like, if not via video games then via movies or TV...

"...[U]ltimately, your only true option is to talk with your kids. What kind of world is depicted in the games they play, and do they really want to spend a lot of time living in it? This is an argument you will not necessarily win every time, but engaging with your children remains the best way to influence their values and how they react to the sex and violence they will inevitably encounter."

Video Game Voters Network: fight For Your Video Games

Plug Into The Network

The Wall of Protest

Visit A Network Outpost

Voices for Video Games

Embed A Banner On Your Site

What's Being Said

Learn More