GameTavern - The First Amendment continues to get raped

It is incredible just how far the Government is willing to go to intervene with censorship, products and consumers. It is no secret that many politicians, mothers and other “authoritative” figures are against violent video games. But, I ask you, the gamer, the thinker and the consumer: Who is to tell you what you can or cannot do? Is it the people that put the roof over your head, the people that shelter you till you are at least 18, or is it some ignorant politician that resides in an office elsewhere? It is riddle to me that politicians, who have probably never touched a violent video game, are attempting to pass laws prohibiting the wholesale of “violent” video games to minors.

I really began putting thought into this matter back when I was looking at Halo 2 news, and I saw the article about the violent video game list for the holiday season. As Gamespot so nicely puts it:

Quote:

ESRB ratings and lax enforcement of ratings by retailers to minors blasted by band of parent, church, and women's groups.

A five-member coalition representing a number of parent, church, and women's organizations, plus a New York City council member, issued what it calls a "10 Worst Violent Video Games" list today.

The list is designed to help convey the consortium's plea to the game industry and retailers to better manage game ratings and the sale of products it feels have "blood-soaked and anti-social" content.

Led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, the group consists of the ICCR, the National Council of Women's Organizations, Mothers Against Violence in America, Center for Advancement of Public Policy, Justice, and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. New York City council member Eric Gioia also joined the group in today's statement.

The group's demands are straightforward: It requests that the industry more accurately label games and that retailers separate adult-only content so it cannot be purchased by minors.

"We call on the marketers and sellers of video games to: publish standards for marketing video games that encourage or reward players for performing acts of violence and brutality, and that depict images demeaning to women and minorities," their statement reads. The groups also ask publishers to "place M-rated games in a location separate from other games in stores; post signage describing the video games ratings systems; and evaluate and report on their enforcement and compliance programs of policies to prevent minors from purchasing violent video games."

The games the group singled out as the year's "Worst Violent Video Games" (at bottom of the page) are all rated "M" for Mature by the ESRB and are not supposed to be sold to children under 17. Besides containing Postal 2 and Manhunt, which both came out in 2003, the list also misspelled and misidentified a number of games, including "Gunslinger Girls 2"--presumably the import Gunslinger Girl Vol. 3--and Hitman: Blood Money, which won't be out until spring of 2005. The list also contained Shadow Hearts, which was released in 2001. Presuming the group meant Hitman: Contracts and Shadow Hearts: Covenant, respectively, the rest of the coalition's list consisted of: Doom 3, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Half-Life 2, Halo 2, and Mortal Kombat: Deception (which the group spelled as "Mortal Combat").

What I found slightly entertaining, at the time, was the fact that these parents and women had absolutely NO CLUE what the f*ck they where talking about. That is obviously apparent, due to the misspelled game names, and listing games that didn’t come out this year. However, the more I thought about it, the less funny it became to me, because people are taking these lists and these complaints against violent video games seriously.

Just recently, in Illinois, Governor Blagojevich has been making an immense push to increase penalties for retailers that sell violent video games to minors.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-vid17.html

Quote:

Speaking to about three dozen mothers and children at the 95th Street Library in Naperville, Gov. Blagojevich said Thursday his role as a father motivated him to take action against violent videos.

"I have two children, and other parents understand how children can change your life," he said. "No one can really appreciate being a parent until you become one."

Blagojevich's proposal defines violent games as those realistically depicting human-on-human violence. Sexually explicit games, he said, would be defined as those realistically depicting nudity exposed in a way that mostly appeals to prurient interests.

Blagojevich said video games in which players take on roles of individuals who kill law officers or degrade women are contributing to the erosion of basic human values.

"When I was growing up in the 1960s, we were taught to respect our elders and those in position of authority. Some of these video games are erasing values parents are trying to teach their kids."

Pardon the last sentence of the first paragraph, as you can see, the Chicago Sun times consists of poor editing, but take into consideration what you just read.

Quote:

But Blagojevich's aides stood by his plan to slap retailers with $5,000 fines and possible jail time if they sell or rent violent or sexually explicit video games to minors, saying it is merely one of a multitude of issues on which the governor is focused.

"We can address the state's fiscal issues and other issues that matter to the people while also taking steps to protect our kids," Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said.

The Governor is focusing on video games this holiday season. He is focusing on upping the fines for selling violent video games to minors, and he is making himself look like a bigger idiot day after day.

Now, I know it is not just Governor Blagojevich that is making this humongous push to somehow shelter our “poor and innocent” children from violent video games. But, as a resident in the state of Illinois, and as an avid gamer, I feel that my rights are being limited even more then they already have been.

I have touched base on this many times, but I was playing Doom when it came out. I was 8 years old when I first started, and I remember it vividly. Doom scared the hell out of me back then, and it was intense watching my friends play it. In retrospect, Doom was a scary game when it came out. Doom was the first of its kind, and Doom was probably worth at least a “Teen” rating by the ESRB’s standards (It eventually got an M-rating) (I’ll indulge in the ESRB momentarily). Now, I have been playing violent video games, from Doom to Grand Theft Auto to Postal to Halo, since they have been coming out. I, a high school student now, 16 years old, with a 3.4 GPA, have never shot up my school, never hi-jacked a car and killed multiple police officers, and have never attempted to build a BFG9000 in my basement to blow up the Empire State Building. No, I keep my video gaming world separate from the world that I live in. Oh, and I was playing Doom back when I was 8. I have a really good family. There is no trauma in my family, no abuse, no drugs or illicit sex or anything like that, and my family has what I would consider to be “good morals.” And, like any student, I have undergone my fair share of abuse at school, but everyone gets made fun of at some point in life, so that should be of little importance. And I am fine. Indeed, if we made violent video games the only constant variable in my life so far, we could easily verify that violent video games have had no negative effect on my life. Thus suggesting that violent video games do not make people go out and buy guns to shoot up their school, they do not make kids do drive-byes, and they do not promote illicit sex. Yes, video games might have an influence on children, and yes, if you are coming from a traumatized environment (go do some actual research, outside of all the media bullsh*t, on the kids that shot up Columbine. They had really f*cked up parents, and they where definitely not living in a stable environment), video games might push you to some sort of edge, but video games in no way, shape or form drive children to taking that 9mm to school to put a bullet into their peer’s head.

Interestingly enough, the cause and effect of video games is not the key point here. Although, the cause and effects of video games are the reason why politicians want stricter laws on vidoe games, it is not the problem at hand.

The problem at hand is the rating system. The ESRB is total bullsh*t, and the only reason it is tolerated by anybody is because people know that it protects their rights to play violent video games – provided they are old enough to purchase them (17 in some states, 18 in others). There is no way that a rating system with 4 main categories can properly gauge who should be playing a video game.

E – Everyone
T – Teen (Ages 13 and up)
M – Mature (Ages 17 and up)
A – Adult (Ages 18 and up)

Yes, there you have it folks - the simplest, and quite possibly weakest rating system ever conceived. By god, someone please tell the ESRB that they CANNOT properly set an age guideline with such broad and general categories. In fact, the more I gave thought on the subject of rating systems, the more I realized that assigning an ideal age number to a rating system simply will not cut it. Generalizing, which is what has been done with the age system is unfair. I was playing Doom at 8, I was playing Grand Theft Auto when I was 11, and I could handle it. Not everyone can handle violent video games at such an early age, if at any age at all, and that is where the rating system is flawed.

The fact is, you have video games like Medal Of Honor, human vs. human violence, that receive “Teen” ratings, ages 13 and up. And then you get games like Halo 2, which consist of Human vs. Covenant (Covenant – nonexistent life-form, fantasy, made up, NOT REAL) that gets an “M for Mature” rating, ages 17 and up. It is not so much a question of blood and violence as it is concept. Yes, Halo 2 has blood, and yes, the combat might be slightly, and I almost dare not say slightly because I hardly mean it, more intense then that of Medal Of Honor. However, the core principle of Medal Of Honor is humans killing humans, opposed to humans killing a non-real thing. Of course, you could be a philosopher, and you could tell me, “Covenants are living, therefore it still is a game that focuses on Living Things vs. Living Things.” But let us face it, politicians have their heads so far up their own asses they probably would not use that piece of philosophy, that technicality if you will, and even if they did, the rating system still remains flawed.

If we did fix this problem, if we dropped Halo 2 down to a Teen Rating, or raised Medal Of Honor to a Mature rating, we would still have the same dirty problem on our hands. The problem is simply this: A rating system based on an age is flawed because everyone perceives life slightly differently at similar ages.

I sure as well was not thinking what you where thinking when you where 8 years old, but even then I knew Doom was not real, and I knew that what was in front of me was nothing more then a contraption of technology. That was, of course, me, not you. That is to say, somewhere out there, when I was playing Doom, the kids that shot up Columbine where playing Doom. Whether or not Doom had any effect on them shooting up Columbine is beyond me, although I highly doubt it, but something pulled their trigger.

Let us just say that Doom was the determining factor in the faith of the poor students that lost their lives on the tragic day that Columbine was shot up. That means that Doom was not suited for them, but other students, same age as them, might have been able to handle the game. What needs to be taken into consideration, is that age is a very narrow approach to setting guidelines. A fine example is school. Everyone in the 8th grade is the same age, but not everyone gets the same grades. So, how is it possible to properly set guidelines for video games by age? The answer is simple: it is not. The solution would be to create a new system, a system that does not use age, but rather lists suspect content.

For instance, Grand Theft Auto might be rated: “This game contains vulgar language, explicit sexual references, indirect sexual activities, violence involving human on human murders, drug use and gang warfare.”

That would be the ideal rating system. Now, this is where the government and people like Governor Blagojevich step in. The first amendment gives people the freedom. It is not the government’s job to intervene with people and their lives. It is the parent’s job to make sure their child is not playing violent video games. With a rating system like the one I just suggested, a parent could go out, pick up the game, and read a brief breakdown of what the game contains. The review is not age specific, so this way the parents can make an intelligent decision on whether or not their child can or cannot handle the video game. This is a much more logical idea, opposed to “Little Johnny can play Medal Of Honor because he is 13, but he cannot play Halo 2 because he is not 17.”

However, what continues to puzzle me is the way the politicians approach the subject. They have absolutely no intent on fixing the flawed rating system, and they continue to make uneducated claims, and laws based off their lack of knowledge. Increasing fines and jail time, and imposing stricter rules are not going to solve this problem. Instead, the government is creating groups of uneducated women, (and please, if you are a female, don’t be to offended by this) and when you put a large group of women together, especially if they are over the age of 35, you are asking for trouble. There are groups against violent video games altogether, there are groups against the wholesale of violent video games to minors, there are groups that think you need to be 18 to purchase a game that is not rated E for Everyone, and there are groups against those 3 groups.

And, in the end, everyone gets hurt. The gamers get hurt, because they cannot play the games they want. The industry gets hurt, because it looses possible consumers, some of whom can handle the violent video games, and even the mothers loose – because I sure as hell didn’t obey my mom when she told me not to play Grand Theft Auto at my friends house back when I was 11 years old.

At any rate, Blagojevich needs to get kicked in the nuts. He is continuing to soil the first amendment, and he obviously has no knowledge of video games. And the whole subject of violent video games, and the ESRB needs to be carefully examined by someone other then me. I am just a gamer that cares, and I occasionally like to express my opinion on the subject.

And finally, I’d like to give a shout out to this mom, wherever she is, because she is one of the few intelligent mothers that has voiced her opinion on the subject so far:

Quote:

Several mothers applauded the governor's efforts to restrict access, though one said she felt otherwise.
"It's my role to decide what's safe for my children," said Julie Lichter. "I don't think it's the state's role to intervene."
She said there are video game rating systems in place today and parents can easily research titles online before making a purchase. Lichter also was skeptical of how the state could enforce the law.

If you read all that, and you disagree with me, that is fine. However, knowing that you are all gamers, I hope that you might be able to at least meet me halfway on the issue.