How Violent Media And Game Censorship Interact

Socrates writes "GamerDad has an article up called 'The Media War', a feature discussing videogames in the context of violent media and the well-meaning groups who try to censor it. 'The war against violent media is not new. Learn the history of media controversy, and take a sobering look at what's in store for gamers down the road.' The piece includes quotes from Douglas Lowenstein of the ESA and IGDA spokesman Jason Della Rocca."

Comments

Huh?

[numbski]

Exactly WHY does the IDSA have squat to do with this?

IDSA == Interactive Digital Software Association

It's essentially a watchdog group paid by various software publishers to be a piracy watchdog group, amongst a few other things.

Therefore, why on earth would they be censoring ANYTHING, if they draw a paycheck from those who would rather not be censored to begin with?

IDSA is a huge racket to begin with.

They are wrong

[Morph233]

I've been playing video games since I was 10 years old. Everything from Super Mario 1, to Doom 3, now being 24 and still playing I have no desire to go around and destroy things or kill people.

Mind you that it would be nice to steal a bus and go for a joy ride(GTA3), but common senses tells me that if I did, off to jail i would go...

unless i could go really fast and get away :)

Re:They are wrong

[Apreche]

Yes, this is also the argument I use. Very logical.

A) Smoking Tobacco CAUSES lung disease. Everyone who inhales smoke recieves an amount of damage to their lungs.

B) Violent video games do NOT cause violence. Not everyone who plays violent video games hurts others.

In fact, the number of people who do hurt others is an extremely large minority of those who play violent games and watch violent media.

This is just another case of post hoc ergo procter hoc. I think I speak for everyone here when we say that bad parents, schools and the attitude of our society are to blame.

There, I said it so nobody else has to.

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

Actually, i hate to be overly argumentative, but your analogy here is not correct.

A) First off, smoking tobacco does not actually cause cancer. The damage to your DNA can cause mutations. These mutations can cause cancer.

You are correct in saying that everyone that smokes revieces an amount of damage to their lungs.

In the same vein, people opposed to violent video games would say that everyone that playes them is exposed to violent video games and is exposed to enactive violence (even if just in video games).

B)You are saying that not everyone that plays violent video games hurts others. I will ignore the fact that "hurt" is a rather loose term and assume that you mean not everyone re-inacts what they see in games.

Now of course this is true, but it is also true that not everyone that smokes gets cancer.

Now, the REAL reason why your reasoning is not good, is becuase it actually proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to have it prove!

That is to say (rewording the arguemnt so that it is factually true.

A) Some percentage of those who smoke get cancer and this cancer can be strongly linked to their smoking (since it is impossible to say exactly what caused a particulare cancer).

Right? Now the reason why we think smoking is bad and should be regulated is because it has adverse affects to society and individuals.

Moving on to point B....

B) Not everyone who plays violent videos games hurts others (aka. some percentage of people that play violent video games will commit violence).

I think we can all agree on that. Now we see that we regulate smoking and claim that it is bad because we correlate smoking with cancer. If ther is any correlation with video games and violence, then it behoves us to regulate it to, by the same argument.

You seem to be willing to admit that violent vidoe games can induce more violent behavior? (by your wording) though i could be misreading what you wrote.

If so, then we see that video games must be regulated.

If however, you think that there is no correlation, then perhaps video games do not need to be regulated. This was not the point of your post though. I am merely trying to show how your arugment is not acutally logical. It merely (when read correctly) re-enforces the idea that we should regulate video games should there be any correlation found between the playing of violent video games and violent behavior.

I am not trying to be mean or anything, i just think that your reasoning is a bit off. that is all.

Re:They are wrong

[VendingMenace]

But of course, a sample size of 1 does not make an arugment. Even counting the two replies and myself that brings us to 4 people that can vouch that violent videogames do not make them more violent. However, even 4 is not a good sample size.

The point being is this, to borrow a poster's argument (kinda). There are people that smoke and do not ever get cancer. It is not because of these people that we regulate smoking. It is becuase there is some percentage of the poeple out there that smoke and seem to have a higher incedence of cancer.

If we see that the use of violent video games increases the incedence of violent crimes then it behooves us to regulate violent games. Just as we regulate smoking, alcohol, drugs, guns, ect...

The point being this...you can sit around all day and talk about how violent media does not affect YOU personally and it doesn't matter at all. What people are concerned about is how it affects the population at large. You must have a sample size that is significant before what you have to say can be considered significant itself. :)

Let's just get it over with:

[RaisinBread]

<argument /.readerFlavor="liberal">
Why in the crap can't people control their children? Its not my freaking fault that you can't - and you don't have the right to keep my mature content away from me, no sir. If you can't handle being a parent, don't even bother to breed.
</argument>

<argument ./readerFlaver="conservative">
I'm all for keeping crap out of my children's hands. If you can find a way to help me battle the ton of crap that is launched at my kids brains every day, I'm all for it. I'm getting tired of the things they can show on mainstream media these days. Society is going to the dogs.
</argument> ...

This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?

</post>

Re:Let's just get it over with:

[PainKilleR-CE]

I always find it interesting that the arguments on this matter can get labeled "liberal" and "conservative" when the people that have introduced most of the legislation in this area have been on both sides of that particular set of labels. It only gets worse when people try to set them to political parties.

The reality is that the government only moves on these types of issues when both sides, whether Republican and Democrat or Liberal and Conservative, manage to come to some degree of agreement. The scary thing is that it usually only takes one or two people on the side that's generally considered against it to swing the rest for it.

Look at the PMRC, the senators listed in the piece, any other group that's really managed to gain any amount of ground against artists. Usually you'll find that they're lead by the very people usually considered defenders of free speech.

When the most liberal states in this country have banned smoking in most public places, you have to start wondering what "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. I think, in the end, they just start to look like "want things to change" and "don't want things to change", and even that isn't quite right when you start adding modifiers like "religious".

This seems to be an ongoing issue across almost every media - can't we figure some out that works for both sides?

As long as people believe they need the government to shield them (or, more likely, their kids) from sex, nudity, violence, and "bad" words, it isn't likely that we'll figure something out that works for both sides. One side believes (because it happens) that government interference will cause them to lose either their creative freedom (as artists) or their freedom to take in whatever content they wish (as viewers/gamers/readers/whatever). The other side believes (because it happens) that as long as the material is available they won't be able to keep their kids from being exposed to it.

In the end, I believe the best solution is point-of-sale enforcement of ratings (with, of course, parental permission allowing those under the rated age to buy material, though this not being necessary if parents are not present) with no government interference. Additionally, parents should discuss TV, music, movies, and games with their children at a young age (and continue doing so as they grow up) so that they are aware that these things are not usually real, and to make sure their kids can separate reality from entertainment.

We all can control what our kids are exposed to in our own homes. We can't expect every parent to have the same level of control or the same assumptions in their own homes. For this reason, we should know the parents of the children our children play with, and we should prepare our children for the possibility that they may see or hear something we don't want them to. Certainly occasional exposure to violent media is not going to be as harmful if the child is properly prepared for it, and in most cases children can deal with it quite well even if it is more than "occasional", if they are raised to understand the differences and to have some morals in the first place (you certainly don't need church or school to teach your kids morality, and why would you want someone else to teach your kids that?).

Re:Well

[Oddly_Drac]

"If I can't shoot virtual people when I get home, I'm going to have to shoot real ones."

Thank Christ for gun ownership. If you didn't have the gun, you'd have to go and talk at them or something.

"what makes them think video games are more harmful then say movies or even the public education system?"

Substitute 'a gun' for 'movies' or 'public education system' and you might have a clue. American culture is about diverting attention away from a raging fetishism for a power symbol while quietly burying people and defending a method of projecting a steel-jacketed lead slug into someone's body. All the talk about 'defence' is a fairly obtuse way of removing the responsibility for extending a situation where a five day waiting time is considered bad for owning a device that only has one purpose. Two if you count opening bottles at a distance.

And yes, I'm expecting the 'flamebait' mod, but to be really honest I'm getting bored with the debate around it, or the whinging that you have to have a gun to protect your home. Personally I go for strong locks.

Sorry you got caught with that one. Interesting day so far.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Oddly_Drac]

"the constant need to fight monsters both teaches bad lessons, and detracts from the enjoyment of the game."

What lessons are those? That mythical monsters need hitting?

Your daughter is a lot smarter than you think, and you should check out the value system being promoted in advertising and media before coming down hard on games. After all, I'm willing to bet that you found the sight of a cat being viciously pummelled by a mouse amusing the first time around? I know I did.

Re:Who needs the violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not advocating or justifying censorship. But for ghoul's sake, add a button in the game for turning on or off the monsters. YMMV, so be it, do what you want with your kids, and play with Monsters "On" if you like.

But as I was saying, they bore ME, and they bore and frighten my kids, and I'd like the option of playing with Monsters "Off." How hard would that be to code, really?

Parenting as changed

[SmallFurryCreature]

More and more parents are not doing their job instead shoving the parenting responsibilty onto others. Two extreme examples. 1: Some immigrants from shall we say more traditional countries are complaining in holland that their kids are undisciplined. In their view it is the state via the police and schools that should teach discipline and they are suprised dutch teachers are not allowed to beat kids. (Note that it is not an immigrant issue, school beatings were only recently outlawed in england)

Second example, a recent investigation by a bbc program into daycare nurseries. With an undercover worker they intended to show how bad the care was. Except that I as an old angry white male couln't see what the problem was half of the time. The kids being left alone or in the care of untrained staff that sure is bad. A kid somehow managing to burn its hand very very badly on a radiator (sounds unlikely since anything with a spinalcord would yerk the hands back long before it could burn so badly) that is bad too.

A child being told of for being a pest sounds like teaching the kid a little bit of discipline. No you are not allowed to be a pest to everyone now go play alone until you can play together.

Apparently this is not "right" anymore.

But parenting is not just the parents. It is society as well. I don't mean the complex society, I mean the people in your neighbourhood. I grew up in an old part of town with a whole mix of people. As I grew up it became one of the bigger town in but when I grew up a few houses down was a working farm. So we had the very very old to the very very young. Kids weren't just raised by their parents they were raised as much by the older kids in the neighbourhood. Those unlucky to grow up 4-5 years behind a group of girls never learned to walk until ten being carried everywhere. I watched my sister and in turn was watched by an older girl. It was as normal to get a bandaid from a young girl as from your own mother.

The idea that nowadays both parents work and they don't take care of their kid is wrong. My mother worked and in general most of the mothers did now I think about it. Certainly the farmers wife did. It was just that they made sure there always were enough people around to watch over things. I can't remember ever having been left alone for real. There always was someone responsible around.

Much later I lived for a while in almere. Wich is a very new city and I noticed something. There was a very distinct age border with the kids playing. These kids did not grow up with older kids. No older kids to teach/show them what is and what isn't done.

Where I currently live is a small group of kids in a mostly single household area and they are between 7-10 yrs old. During the summer days they do never leave the street they live in, no kids around to go play with. Their parents don't seem intrestted in taking them somewhere or even playing with them. Their is large park extremely close yet it is rarely used.

Maybe I am just old but I think my childhood was a lot better. I learned not to bully because the kid you bully would have an older brother/sister/nephew/etc. But you also stood up for the younger ones in turn. It was a community.

Every child will go through a hurting other people stage. They simply will not have learned yet that kicking someone hurts. The old way of teaching that is hurting the child back. Not a beating but a hard slap on the leg will soon teach it that kicking other people is bad. If for no other reason then that you will be hurt in turn. Not very nice but it works. Current more PC educators seem not to agree. Problem? There methods don't work.

So I don't think video games are that much of a problem. They are merely an excuse. Sorta like don't kill people they just make it a lot easier.

Kids being not raised by parents who have not been raised because all the parents want to be their kids friends or worse don't want to be parents. Take the recent so-called x-box murder. This has nothing to do with x