Slashdot Mirror
Doug Lowenstein on Game Censorship
An anonymous reader writes "GamerDad has interviewed Doug Lowenstein of the ESA (Entertainment Software Association, the trade body for game publishers) about videogame violence and the future of gaming. From Doug's responses to the interview: 'Every time a new medium is introduced - whether it be movies, television or rock-and-roll - there will always be generations who aren't accustomed to it, don't understand it and, in a way, fear its success and popularity with younger generations. This is nothing new and I think that's what is happening with games today. It's no accident that most of the attacks on video games come from people over 50 whereas the core video game population is between 18 and 35. But as members of the video game generation become parents, teachers, journalists, cultural critics and policy makers, I think we'll see some of the criticism of games balanced by a better appreciation of how they enrich our lives and culture.'"
I think that censorship in general could be replaced by good, ol' fashioned responsible parenting. Rather than taking good games off the market, enforce the rating system!!
I heard a mother say in the game store the other day say she'd rather her 14 year old play GTA: 3 or VC than watch cable...Appalling.
I've seen this happen a few times. The most memorable one was with skateboarding. When it first came out there were laws passed banning skating and if you were out on the sidewalk on your board a cop would surely stop you. Now you can find public skate parks in most cities that are supported by the local government.
I'm sure when the printing press was invented, people freaked out just as bad at the thought of someone's opinion being widely available to anyone.
Just try to remember this whole debacle in 30 years when you get the urge to support the censorship of your grandchildren's favorite medium.
Sure, that would work... if all parents were responsible. Sadly enough, that is not the case, and I doubt that will ever happen.
It just takes one bad parent with GTA3 and a handgun to give the media food for a year, the chances of something NOT happening are too small.
Look at all the pot smoking hippies and free love of the 70's. Now that these people are in power, pot is still illegal, and obsenity laws are becoming more and more stringent.
It seems to me the 'newer generation' getting into power is being influenced by the current people at the top.
But as members of the video game generation become parents, teachers, journalists, cultural critics and policy makers, I think we'll see some of the criticism of games balanced by a better appreciation of how they enrich our lives and culture.
I think that what you will see in that once gamers become parents they will be horrified at how much time their children waste playing video games when they should be working to educate themselves.
Questions for the /. masses, especially parents:
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
If that bad parent knew that they would be the one sent to jail if Little Johnny goes ape-shit with a gun... maybe that one bad parent would make a better effort?
Of course it wouldn't be automatic, but a trial for criminal negligence and complicity.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
At 14? That doesn't seem too bad; children by that age shouldn't have a problem knowing that they should not re-enact behavior that they play.
Marge: Thank you, Doctor. Whenever the wind whistles through the leaves, I'll think of your name: Lowenstein... Lowenstein...
The skatepark arose as a solution to that problem. They still can't let hooligans loose on crowded sidewalks with those things, so they sponsor a place where they can be used to full effect. (More often than not, though, I think the skateparks are owned by private individuals, not local governments.)
The skatepark isn't an overall acceptance of the hobby, it's just a solution to an old problem: where can someone use a skateboard that won't knock people over?
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
is less of a problem than alcohol abuse right now, because it is illegal and thus the abuse is greatly limited.
:)
Bwahahahah. Good one. No, I don't have a point, I just wanted to laugh at that, and I have karma to burn
"when you lose small mind you free your life"
Place sig here.
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Because it's a terrible, terrible idea. People already think that McDonalds are to blame for their obesity.
Every time a new medium is introduced - whether it be movies, television or rock-and-roll - there will always be generations who aren't accustomed to it, don't understand it and, in a way, fear its success and popularity with younger generations.
This is just plain stupid. It's not the medium that people are concerned with, it's the content of some games in this new medium. I am 29, and I still don't want my kids to see blood splattered all over their monitor when playing games. That just doesn't seem like a healthy thing for 14 year olds to be exposed to more than is neccessary. Even if they no it's not real, it de-sensitizes them to it and makes it more acceptible. If the only argument this guy can come up can be boiled down to "Old people suck!", then it's really not worth listening to.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Yeah... his is a great arguement, but this isn't a different medium than movies, tv, computer games, etc. They are all visual and watched through a TV set or monitor. Most video games are full of FMV's, many from popular movies. Why can you not discuss censorship just because the movie is played on a ps2 rather than a dvd player?... oh wait... both are DVD players.
These arguements are just attempts to change the subject and not deal with the matter at hand.
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Yes, and it's generally accepted that once a person reaches adulthood, he or she *is* responsible for his or her actions. If a parent is held responsible when little Johhny breaks the windshield of the neighbors' car, why should they *not* be responsible when little Johhny breaks the legs of the neighbors' kid? As long as a child is a child, and you are his parent or guardian, you are responsible for what that child does.
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday. Adults should be responsible for their own actions, and parents should be responsible for their children.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Because it's a terrible, terrible idea. People already think that McDonalds are to blame for their obesity.
Not the same thing, and a very disingenuous (or stupid) argument. Why is it a terrible idea? Because it would keep children out of prison who should be locked up, or because it would force parents to get a lot more involved in their childrens' lives or risk jail when they do soething horribly bad?
People think McDonalds is to blame for their obesity for the same reason that they think video games, TV, and movies are to blame for their kids' bad behavior...they refuse to accept personal responsibility for negative outcomes. I'm not sure why you're trying to stand that on its ear, but it was a valiant attempt. Eat at McDonalds 5 days a week: get fat. Let the media raise your kids: they em grow up with no sense of right and wrong. Be negligent enough in raising your child that he/she maliciously kills/maims/hurts someone: face the music.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
I think that depends on what the crime is, from the parents' perspective. It is not a crime to let your 12 year old kid watch R-rated movies or even porn! (correct me on the porn part, if necessary) It isn't a crime to let your kid play violent video games, listen to rap music or watch graphic TV. So if a kid goes out and acts out GTA with the neighbor's kiddos, of what crime is the parent guilty? Being a bad parent? What if the parent was being good by letting their child experience a bit of freedom, and that child was being exposed at a neighbor's house? Do you now hold those people responsible?
I think that crimes (let's not get into IP and copyright arguments) are things that are generally, socially accepted faux pas. Very few people will debate that murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. are crimes against society and/or people's personal rights. But being a bad parent has such a broad definition and is subject to so many different viewpoints that I think it is a topic best avoided by the judicial system.
Now, if you want to make it an offense (like a misdemeanor) for providing rated content to an underage child, then you might be able to extrapolate a few laws if those exposed children commit crimes. Even still, you're now subject to a lot of interpretation in enforcing said laws. How would you go about proving that the child committed acts based on his/her exposure to the "illegal" content? Is the parent responsible? What about the retail establishment that may have sold the items to the parent with the child present?
And now we have a huge new argument that can go on forever. I think this is the reason that courts generally stay out of a parent's way unless a childs personal rights are expressly violated.
It just takes one bad parent with GTA3 and a handgun to give the media food for a year, the chances of something NOT happening are too small.
Do the odds change in any significant way if you only remove GTA3 from the equation though? Anyone influenced to violence by a video game already has enough issues that making games a scapegoat isn't going to help anybody.
sig fault
> if you want to make it an offense (like a misdemeanor) for providing rated content to an underage child
No I want to put parents on trial for complicity and negligence on a case by case basis. That way your neighbor analogy and most minor offenses, mistakes that ALL parents make, and factors beyond their control would not implicate them in a crime.
I want to try them before a jury of their peers to decide if lack of parental involvement or damaging involvement contributed significantly to the childs actions.
It IS a difficult line to walk. I'm not even too sure the benefits would outway the problems that arise with such a "solution". But it might be worth trying.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Sadly, I have to agree. I worked a stint in a high school library recently, and saw a lot of students who basically just imitated whatever they saw their friends doing with total disregard for whether or not it was a good idea. It seems entirely possible to get into high school and still be thinking on a very concrete, somewhat literalistic level, under which it's okay to do whatever you see people you like doing or whatever seems fun.
The problem is that it's never "just a videogame" that leads kids to commit acts of violence; there's always a lot more going on in their lives that leads up to the act. It's just so hard to convince people of that when the form of the crime explicitly imitates some game scenario or another, and seems to present a "simple" explanation.
This is because the banned drugs are abused much less due to the problems associated with illegality
:)
Uh-huh. So ask high school (or any other under-21 person) which is easier for them to get: weed or beer?
making it legal allows the government to better control it. making it illegal just creates a thriving black market.
Place sig here.
I'm not the first to say this, I know, but I can't belive anyone would say that. To many of us, 'good old fasioned parenting' is in conflict with out beliefs. For instance, my parents raised me without a bedtime, something their parents would find apauling. My grandparents' parents would often physically discipline them, something the whole family line now finds apauling. Your riteous creed may be the way to take your family, by I don't have a problem with what that mother said. Unless the kid has gone on a killing spree since she said that, it oviously hasn't created a problem. Why keep the kid from having fun?
Personally, I do hate GTA. I find it repetative and not at all fun. I mention that so I don't come across as a rabid GTA fanboy.
Forget asking whether it is a crime. Ask, "If a child does something, does Justice demand that a parent be punished?"
Herein lies the problem. It is not Just to punish someone for something they can not avoid. You say,
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday.
And I say, nobody can spend that much time.
I had loving parents, etc. I'm about as straigh-laced as they come... but in the end, that was my choice. There was many a thing that I did without my parent's knowlege. I could have easily made some serious crimes, like running drugs, one of them. I had the brains. I had the opportunity. And there's not a damn thing they could have done about it if I so chose.
You can make a case for negligence being actionable, because that is a direct action the parent takes. Negligence should be actionable independently of whether the kid ever does anything. But while a child is not a truly free actor yet, neither are they robotic automatons responding directly and solely to their parent's actions. You can not hold parents legally responsible for their children's most heinous crimes... all you can use it as is as just cause for investigating their parent's behavior, and since nobody can define "good parenting" very well anyhow...
In the end, one must be careful not to make the action of having children something that gives parents pause because of the significant possibility of totally random jail time based on the (in the final analysis) uncontrollable actions of their children.
Now, to any potential Slashbots smashing the reply button to angrily contradict me, make sure you understand what I'm saying. Parents are not devoid of responsibility, legal and moral. But neither is the child. It's equally wrong to wipe the responsibility away from either party. The correct answer requires analysis of both parties. No easy answers here!
Forget asking whether it is a crime. Ask, "If a child does something, does Justice demand that a parent be punished?"
Herein lies the problem. It is not Just to punish someone for something they can not avoid. You say,
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday.
And I say, nobody can spend that much time.
And I disagree. While it takes a great deal of effort to raise a child and to be able to trust them to make good decisions (to be *reasonably* sure, I said), it's not only very possible, it's done every day by many parents.
I had loving parents, etc. I'm about as straigh-laced as they come... but in the end, that was my choice. There was many a thing that I did without my parent's knowlege. I could have easily made some serious crimes, like running drugs, one of them. I had the brains. I had the opportunity. And there's not a damn thing they could have done about it if I so chose.
You can make a case for negligence being actionable, because that is a direct action the parent takes. Negligence should be actionable independently of whether the kid ever does anything. But while a child is not a truly free actor yet, neither are they robotic automatons responding directly and solely to their parent's actions. You can not hold parents legally responsible for their children's most heinous crimes... all you can use it as is as just cause for investigating their parent's behavior, and since nobody can define "good parenting" very well anyhow...
Hmm...here I partially agree with you. True, older kids are not completely under their parents' control, but that doesn't mean that the kid with the crack business, or with the guns in his room is the only person responsible. It's a scary thought for parents, and that's part of the reason we want no part of it. How do we control our kids who are so much more edgy/dangerous/advanced than we were at their age? How do we keep them from doing terrible things?
To have that thought probably means that you aren't devoting as much time to your kids as you should. Not definitely, but probably. Of course, NOT having that thought doesn't mean that you're doing great, and needn't worry about it. You cannot hold parents SOLELY responsible for their childrens' most heinous crimes, but except in cases of mental instability in the kid, the parent definitely shares some of the blame, and even then, sometimes the parent is the *reason* for the mental instability. I'd define good parenting as an overall result, not a set of particular skills...some kids need more guidance than others, and some parents may need to put in overtime with their kids.
In the end, one must be careful not to make the action of having children something that gives parents pause because of the significant possibility of totally random jail time based on the (in the final analysis) uncontrollable actions of their children.
Except that it wouldn't be random. Juries are made up of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, and they're going to understand that Mr. Smith spent weekends out camping with Johnny, and played catch with him, and kissed him goodnight, and told him that he shouldn't break people's lefs, but Johhny did it any way. In the end, one must be careful, I agree, and any law along these lines would have to be carefully crafted to avoid unwarranted sent
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
As a 26 year old, what up-and-coming trend/technology/pastime am I going to want to legislate out of existence when I'm a crotchety old bastard? At what point will we collectively quit being intimidated by that which we don't understand?
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.