Clinton, Lieberman Propose CDC Investigate Games

Gamespot reports that Senators Clinton and Lieberman have asked the Centers for Disease control to investigate how games impact us poor deluded citizens. From the article: "Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games. The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process." Gamasutra has some background on the bill, which was originally proposed in 2003.

Comments

Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[eldavojohn]

When I first read this article, I thought that the CDC had no right to deciding what is and what is not mentally healthy for raising my children.

As mission statement says:

To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. The CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and the world to

• monitor health,
• detect and investigate health problems,
• conduct research to enhance prevention,
• develop and advocate sound public health policies,
• implement prevention strategies,
• promote healthy behaviors,
• foster safe and healthful environments,
• provide leadership and training.

I don't think any of those are really concentrating on developmental mental health of my child. However, after looking at the the CDC page on child development it looks like they do consider themselves watchdogs of how children should be raised to some extent:

The early years of a child's life are crucial for cognitive, social and emotional development. Therefore, it is important that we take every step necessary to ensure that children grow up in environments where their social, emotional and educational needs are met.

Cost to society of less than optimal development are enormous and far-reaching. Children who grow up in environments where their developmental needs are not met are at an increased risk for compromised health and safety, and learning and developmental delays. Failure to invest time and resources during children's early years may have long term effects on the foster care, health care, and education systems. Therefore, it is in the public's interest to ensure that children develop in safe, loving, and secure environments.

It then goes on to provide activity charts for the ranges of years for small children.

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Simple, right where the line between responsibility of protecting innocents meets the border of nanny state.

Hmm. Of course, I have no idea where that lies.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically this will involve getting various "think-tanks" to research the claims until they get the result they are looking for... Look shiny!!!

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Jason1729]

* monitor health, * detect and investigate health problems, * conduct research to enhance prevention, * develop and advocate sound public health policies, * implement prevention strategies, * promote healthy behaviors, * foster safe and healthful environments, * provide leadership and training.

They are going to do a conduct research to detect and investigate if this is a health problem. If there is a health problem they will do everthing else listed. This falls well within their mission statement.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Surt]

Clearly, this sort of study is all about finding out just what might be causing such serious harm that it is worthy of societal intervention. It used to be that we said physical discipline was a parent's right. Now we have numerous scientific studies that say that kids who are beaten so hard they wind up in the hospital have serious, society draining problems for the rest of their lives, so we have decided the line is somewhere before that position, and everybody who works with kids are now mandated reporters of child abuse. Likewise sexual and emotional abuse. When mandated reporters notice signs of these problems, they notify the authorities, and the authorities attempt to determine what corrective action needs to be taken. It will be the same thing with games. If games are proven to be causing significant long term harm to our society, laws will be established to force parents to handle the issue appropriately with their children.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IAmTheDave]

Where do we draw the line at what is considered "neglect" by a parent?

Yeah, good luck with that one.

I can't tell you how many times I've read some /. comment that says "noone can tell me how to raise my kids!" and "keep the government out of my way as a parent!" etc. But any "line" and any "neglect" is really just your individual understanding of morality.

For instance, a hundred years back, it wasn't uncommon for a child of 10, 11 to labor in the fields of his/her parents farm for 8-12 hours a day, weekends too. Now that would be considered abuse.

Some parents also believe in corporal punishment, to varying degrees. I guarentee you that some of the commentors who insist that only a child's parent best knows how to raise said child are also the first to decry anyone that might strike a child in any fashion.

Add to that that the world is riddled with unfit parents who neglect the health and well-being of their children, but put off any attempt to correct them in their actions.

So the line is so broadly spread based on who you talk to, it's most certainly difficult to pin down. However, we do have to have SOME established line, even if some people don't agree with it. It's probably legal for me to teach my son about the mature female anatomy and sex by showing him pornographic pictures, but hardly legal for me to encourage that he explore the mature female anatomy himself.

So best of luck. Honestly, the thing that sucks is that some of these anti-game crusaders do it for political gain (Clinton) but others truely believe in their cause, so it's harder to fault them for standing up for what they truely believe, especially when it revolves around the welfare of children.

Sorry for the run-on thought pattern here, but you ask an almost impossible question.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[Vaystrem]

"Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents."

Your absolutely right, and your absolutely wrong. Yes it takes parents to raise a child, assuming you have parents which hundreds of thousands of orphans from the AIDS crisis and other crises around the world do not.

The point that was being made by the author was that the role of the community in its own development, and the development of its members, is important and significant. How that community is structured, is it inclusive? is it a positive environment? is it safe? does it have the resources necessary to promote growth? (economic environmental and social)

There are so many factors that are beyond the control of parents. You want to look at drug abuse, violence, exclusion, poverty, whatever, all of them are incredibly linked to the community. The individual, and certainly not the parents, do not control the context in which they live their lives. If our communities degenerate, or continue to degenerate as many authors have suggested, it won't matter what kind of parent you are - you can only teach your child so much and shield them from so much. Beyond that the responsibility lies with your child, and the environment they interact within, namely 'the community' on whatever plan you choose to identify it (municipality -> nation -> nation-state -> continent, etc)

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

You make some good points, I'll admit, but parents are the first line upbringing. Orphans are an entirely different matter, so that's a pretty moot point... of course it takes an orphanage to raise an orphan when no suitable adoptive parents are available... but the preference is on finding parents.

As for the other things - the preference always goes to letting the parent decide. For example, who decides if the community is "structured" well enough? Define "positive" environment? A bunch of hippies preaching love and tolerance? The public school system preparing our children for a life of socialism and perhaps ultimately communism? Before you go off the deep end about that, it's subtle things... like having to share your school supplies with everyone... when I confronted our child's first grade teacher about it, I said "I'd prefer my child to have his own things that he can take care of and learn responsibility, so if it's a matter of other kids not being able to afford supplies, I'd be happy to help." She basically said, in a nutshell, I was missing the point.

And "inclusive"? What the heck does that mean? Forced integration is not a positive, natural and willing integration is. Would you mandate that all schools are exactly W% white, X% black, Y% hispanic, and Z% asian and other? Frankly, I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but language like that makes me want to gag.

Here's my honest opinion of Hillary: I like Bill a lot better. Hillary is an elitest who believes she knows more than the masses, and if she had her way it would be a dictatorship with her at the helm telling us in minute detail how to raise our kids (and how to eat, and what to drive, and what we can watch on TV, and just about everything else, too). People like to call her a socialist, but she is, in fact, a full blown communist - even though she would never admit it.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[gfxguy]

I don't need teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, neighbors, or anyone else to tell me wether or not my kids play too many video games.

And, in fact, throughout history children have been raised quite successfully without teachers, police officers, firefighters, neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers (except what they grew themselves), extended family or friends...

I didn't say it didn't help, or that some things the community provides aren't beneficial, I said it doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes parents.

And more than what you mention, what Hillary MEANT was a child should be raised by the community's standards and not the parents. Wait, scratch that... what Hillary REALLY meant was that a child shouldn't be raised by the parent's standards, they should be raised by HER standards.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Hillary is a socialist. It's best to keep that in mind if you favor personal responsibility.

Please do not paint us social democrats with a broad brush. Hillary is not a socialist, she is just a career politican, an authocrat and ... quite nuts. Socialists do not love big or powerful government (on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do, just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!), nor do they "hate personal responsibility". They do not give a damn how the societal services are delivered as they are only concerned with the existence of such services and with the nature of the community in which they live. That is why in many countries with "socialist" systems, you will find private companies competing on delivery of such services, although they are funded by taxation. Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience. That does not mean that they support hordes of lazy free-loaders sitting around waiting for some hard working individual to deliver their champaigne and lobster, but it does mean that they expect some basic rules of economic decency to be around and that the economic engine of the society is made to perform its work for all members of that society and not just a select few.

Contrast this with this new breed of "conservatives", "neo-classical capitalists", "anarcho capitalists" and "libertarians" (radical revolutionaries is a more fitting term for all of them) who would be happy with gargantuan inequality of wealth where few individuals literally own nations, globe spanning monopolies, corporate armies, wars for resources, being ruled by outright feudal lords and many other similar things, all in the narrow-minded name of "personal responsibility", with the view of somehow justifying their own, small-time, pitiful, petty greed (and getting eaten alive in the process by the true sharks of this game).

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[DigiShaman]

Considering that the vast majority of people are complete idiots

I agree. But you want to know something? I support their right to be idiots! It's called freedom.

I want the government out of my own personal fucking affairs...including *my* right to be an idiot at times.

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[steve buttgereit]

I must take issue with some of your positions.

"Hillary is not a socialist." I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S. By using high degrees of government regulation or ownership to rectify perceived unfairness in the distribution of health care by definition is a socialist policy position. Your other characterizations I agree with. Look, even my side of the political spectrum has its own whack jobs: think Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, is some key ways Pat Robertson and I do agree and I can't disavow that to make me look more correct. I have to take it for what it is and take faith that even whack jobs may get some things right; anything else is artificial and hypocrisy.

"Socialists do not love big or powerful government" First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes it from the opposing conservative ideology: namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement. Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot. So when you say, "Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience," I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.

You go on to add from the point of the last paragraph, "(on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do [love big government], just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!) This is just political sophistry aimed at painting the Bush administration with the dirty phrase 'neo-con' much the same way conservatives turned 'liberal' into an undesirable label (thereby causing the American Left to search for more palatable monikers such as 'progressive'). Couple things we should get straight... my understanding of neo-conservatism (speaking now as one that hold many of these ideologies) is primarily focused on the foreign policy of the country not so much the domestic agenda. Admittly I may be wrong on the formal definition (I don't get too caught up with trendy labels), but if we broaden your statement to be 'conservative' ideology your argument couldn't be more flawed. I would suggest that the Bush Administration is not conservative at all nor representative of conservative thought. I think the recent Cato Institute conference generally got it right; Bush and his administration are Christian Socialists. Congress, too, has largely been made up of RINOs (republicans in name only) since the fall of Gingrich. The ideas of small government conservativism died at about the same time as their greatest champion, Ronald Reagan, did.

But be a Socialist after Marx or be one after Christ, the two have a few things in common. The notion that they have been appointed (one by God the other by ???) to determine what is right and wrong for the rest of us is proof of their kinship. Economic inequalities between me and my fellow man? So what. Many more poor than rich? So long as the rule of law is paramount and that law establishes nothing more than a level playing field in terms of opportunity, let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. Within the nation so long as there are the minimal constraints to prevent monopoly amongst competitors be they companies or ethnic/religious groups there should be no one to make such decisions as, "you are too rich," or, "you are too powerful". Only if you can make the argument that by force (exercised throug

Re:Where do we draw the line for the CDC?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S.

I think you have some seriously distorted view of what socialism is. Apparently to you, any attempt at a universal medical coverage would be a socialist, or I fear, even a "communist" venture. May I point out that this idea is something that is present in all top industralized countries with the exception of the US. US stands alone in its backwards stupor, throwing thousands of its citizens to death, disease or life-long debt in the name of greed. It is quite pathetic and shameful. And nothing to do with Socialism, unless you consider all of the top industralized countries to be hives of near-Bolshevik Collectivisation, and ony the poor, alone in the world, US of A being the lone Capitalist one. Wait, don't answer that...

First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes

Untrue, all forms of central governance require legislative power, only anarchism does not.

it from the opposing conservative ideology:

Not so. Unless by "conservative" you mean "anarchist".

namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement.

Distribution of wealth is not the primary concern. The effects of insane disparities are. Power should always be distrubuted, and only a feudal lord would think otherwise. Have you heard about that thing called "democracy"?

Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot.

Again, this is true of any form of governance, save anarchy.

I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.

You assume that all of the social programs must be managed directly and centrally. In fact all that is needed is some sane legislation and enforcement of thereof, no different that those applied to protection of private property or common criminal activity. In many industralized countries, including Canada -- where I live, the delivery of medical services is performed by private entities. Only the insurance plans are funded by taxation. In Canada, over 95% of family doctors are in private practice. Most hospitals are private (although they tend to be no-profit corporations). And now for the funny part: the administrative overhead is much lower here then in the US. Go figure that one out (I will link you to statistical data if you dont believe me). Does this make for a "big" government? Do you consider a single insurance company being owned by the government being "big"? How is this different then having a central national bank as virtually all countries do?

There are very few of such companies that the government needs to own or otherwise operate. Its mandate is limited to providing base, skeletal services for the society and the remaining 99.9% is up to the private industry. I cannot understand where is all that hostility against even that tiny sliver of national economy being nationalized is coming from. Never you mind that we have companies like Toyota moving their plants here, quote: "because of health care costs". Happier workers, happier industry, less overhead, humane treatment of all citizens, overall lower cost per capita (less then 50% of that of the US which has 40 million people uninsured). We do have our own problems, but they are minor and severely overblown (usually by "think-tanks" funded by US insurance inustry). People do wait for surgery, but so do they in the US, except the wait time is based here on the medical concept of "

Forget the CDC and games..

[Rob T Firefly]

What I want to know is, when will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms figure out what to do with the Space Program while the Federal Aviation Administration revitalizes our nation's public school system?

Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[shawb]

Forget the coffee cups... it won't cover ashtrays and no smoking signs.

Control Group

[Shadow Wrought]

If they will be providing games to participants int he study I'll happily volunteer.

Then frag you all! mwahahahahaha

Aaugh!

[Golias]

Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat. I was even a fan of your ill-fated White House bid.

Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.

Re:Aaugh!

[jonnythan]

From Wikipedia:

"Political positions

Censorship

Lieberman has been criticized by many computer and video game players for his stance on video games; he is a strong supporter of video game censorship. He has also been vocal in the censorship of many controversial musical artists. In the late 1990s Lieberman was vocal in lobbying for censorship against shock rocker Marilyn Manson, calling his group "one of the sickest" he had ever seen. As a senator he inspired the advent of the Entertainment Software Rating Board. The Entertainment Software Association is against governmental regulation of or restriction on video games. Therefore, the organization opposes Lieberman. He has been known many times to denounce the violence contained in video games and has made attempts to regulate sales of violent video games to minors.

On November 29, 2005, Lieberman, together with Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act. The act is intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games."

Re:Aaugh!

[nmb3000]

Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.

He's not going to drop this issue or the harpy. The issue is a "hot" one that will get his name spread around the news and the harpy is (unfortunately) supposed to be the "Next Big Thing" (s/Thing/Flop ?)

So now you feel like punching all those Democrats in the throat. Welcome to the club.

Re:Aaugh!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Please Senator Lieberman, you're a Republican at heart, so you should switch parties. Hillary should go too, and we'll replace you with some real liberals who stand for our rights, especially those in the Bill of Rights.

Re:Aaugh!

[poot_rootbeer]

Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat.

Really? I would have thought that someone even remotely familiar with Lieberman's record in office would not be surprised by this. He's always been of fan of this kind of big-government nanny program.

Re:Aaugh!

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Extreme liberals believe that they are the center of the world and consider anyone who disagrees with them to be neo-conservatives.

I don't think "liberal" means what you think it means. You have been too indoctrinated to think straight. "Liberal" in much of the rest of the world means "political centre" as there are far more "socialist" parties all around, like for example the NDP here in Canada. The word "liberal" in this context refers an attempt to "not interfere" in both social (allowing abortions, gay marriage etc) and economic matters (free market but with some minor constraints to palacate the leftists) - although of course there have been deviations from this definition, sometimes extreme. Also in many places "neo-liberal" means what in the US is called "neo-classical capitalist" and is characterized by a love affair with unrestricted "free" markets (thus abandoning any pretense of leftists alliances) and military interventionism to further that cause. Tony Blair in Britain, George's best buddy, is considered a "neo-liberal" by many.

Is gaming a disease?

[slashbob22]

Why do we need the CDC to investigate? I think it would be better handled by an addictions group. The ONLY plausible reason to get the CDC involved is to have access to those bio-containment suits while they visit the homes of some of the most entranced gamers.

Re:Is gaming a disease?

[Surt]

DSM-IV diagnosed mental disorders are considered diseases, and are considered appropriate research areas for CDC grants. The theory here is that games may be a cause of DSM-IV diseases, and so should be researched further by the CDC. It's much like child abuse, the CDC funds tons of research on that, but it's not like you catch some virus and start hitting your kids. It's about what is good for the public health, and the health and functioning of our society as a whole.

Stupid, but...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical, and sociobehavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet, and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships, and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet, and cell phones would all be fair game.

At least they are treating games on the same level as movies etc for a change instead of pretending there is some magical difference.

Damn Republicans!

[DAldredge]

Oh, never mind...

brain research

[Colonel Panic]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

Re:brain research

[kbonapart]

Because we fear a bias within the study, or questions phrased in such a way to give the results that the sponsors of the bill want to hear.

"Researcher" One: Now that you've played five hours of GTA, do you think stealing cars from other people can be fun in the game?
Timmy: I guess so.

Headline: Research Finds That GTA Makes Kids Want To Steal!

Oh course, I don't think it would be that far, but studies such as this will be trumpeted from every news stand if they find something damning, and buried if they don't. If it is a well-crafted game, then it will be pleasurable to play. And if it's violent-themed, then what the researchers will see is an increase in the pleasure response when the eight year old test subject skids through three police officers and two federal agents with his stolen police car.

Will the child then go rob a bank? I doubt it.

But none of this matters anyway, since the games they will be testing on the children aren't meant to be played by the test subjects!!!. Violent games aren't meant for kids. You want a study with a violent games that kids play? Have them play Hello Kitty: Roller Attack. Hello Kitty dishes out some major punishment with a hammer.

Although after five hours of Hello Kitty, *I* would want to kill someone.

Re:brain research

[EABird]

Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.

Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.

The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.

If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever.

Re:brain research

[Psmylie]

I think the main reason that people resist this type of research is because studies like this are typically either exaggerated or spun in a way that supports the conclusions of the people pushing the study, in this case Lieberman and Clinton. The bias of a very small number of people can be quickly turned into "scientific fact" by politicians and the media. It's better not to do the research at all unless we can guarantee that the research is performed and distributed in an unbiased fashion.

Re:brain research

[BeanThere]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.

It's not that idea to which there is resistance - it's the idea that it should be legislated and regulated even if the idea is true. "Freedom" means allowing people to do basically anything so long as those things don't harm others or impinge on the freedoms of others. Gaming does neither, nor does allowing one's children to play games. It's not the job of some "nanny state" government to regulate anything and everything that might be considered "harmful" to someone (even "the children") or might conceivably lead someone somewhere to contemplate possibly committing a crime. Playing games doesn't cause violence - at best you could argue that it might provoke people to think about possibly committing an act of violence -- and suddenly you're on very tenuous ground, because it's exactly like the argument that viewing porn causes people to commit rape. People should be punished for the actual crimes they commit. Real violence is already illegal, we don't need new legislation for that, and thinking about violence shouldn't be illegal.

It's interesting to note that the explosive rise of increasingly violent (and realistic) games over the last couple of decades has also seen a steady decrease in violent juvenile crime rates. Now there are of course many variables at play there, but it's interesting in that it's the opposite of what one would expect given your assertions --- if violent games led to any not-insignificant amount of real violence, then with the incredibly massive popularity of violent games we should have seen a massive upswing in violent crime among juveniles recently. We haven't, in fact we've seen the opposite. (That of course doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been such an increase, it may simply be masked by other trends, but it does seem to suggest that if there is such an increase that it is very likely insignificantly small.)

Freedom of Speech?

[parasonic]

The spirit of the whole concept of Freedom of Speech is speech with no government interference. This includes psychological war-games that the government likes to play with us creating propaganda (if even "merely" justifications) about ideas which it doesn't like and which the people do. I wholeheartedly believe that video game violence does not equate enough with real-life violence to create a correlation strong enough to trigger violent "thought-crimes." From what I've seen in high school and college, 3D games really let the player have a lot of fun and get out frustrations.

But as always with "studies" performed by the government, it's just to support someone's agenda and create publicity. A waste of our tax dollars for some bad politician's attempt to gain an edge.

CDC should investigate scapegoat disease

[noidentity]

If the CDC is going to be investigating non-tangible diseases, it should first start with that of scapegoating, that is, finding surrogate explanations when the real one is unpalatable.

Re:this is a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another election year tactic. Note how they have changed and said that it passed without any funding allocated to it. (The $90 million is a red herring.) This is the time honored and refined tactic of those seeking re-election to get a good sounding bill which seems in the public interest into the spotlight. If it manages to pass, they will simply forget to appropriate funds for the project.

So they get the warm fuzzies of saying "Hey, we're doing something smart!" while saving themselves from any bad things. They can always blame the lack of appropriations on someone else, or blame the lack of further action on the lack of appropriations.

Free speech

[Kohath]

That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.

It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.

What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.

If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.

Come to think of it, that would make a fun game.

Re:Free speech

[Surt]

Of course it matters if there is harm. That's why you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theater

Imagine if subliminal advertising worked. Would you support coca cola having the right to brainwash you with television commercials that forced you to buy their product against your will?

Now imagine that it is proven that violent games cause physiological brain changes that predispose you to acts of violence.

Ratings system?

[digitaldc]

Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work, but still there are laws out there. Make buying these games by minors just as tough as buying alcohol or cigarettes.

Why is it always people that know little or nothing about video games are always the ones railing so hard against them? It's also interesting that neither Clinton nor Lieberman are saying anything about the TV & Movie industry constantly having violence in their shows/movies which may also harm children.
God forbid a naked breast showing up somewhere. That would be instantly banned and deemed harmful...strange world we live in.

Re:Ratings system?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many times I read this site, I am still shocked to find that people in America actually believe that there are laws governing video game sales. There are not. Every state that has tried to institute one has either failed to actually pass it, or had the law stricken down by the courts, because laws governing speech as if it were tobacco or alcohol are unconstitutional laws.

Same thing with movies. There is no law saying that a ten year old can't watch an R-rated movie unattended in a theater. The movie theaters (and some video stores) enforce those rules themselves as part of their business model. Just like the ESRB does for video games, and has been doing for years.

Most of the children who get their hands on T or M rated games have them bought by their parents. How would solidifying the ESRB ratings in law prevent this? It wouldn't, if for no other reason that that people believe the law already exists, and it is still happening.

Re:Ratings system?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work

It does work. I've said this time and time again. I've witnessed young kids trying to buy violent games at EB and the EB employee would not sell them it. I've seen mothers ask the EB employees, "is this game violent?" and the EB employees would answer with honesty.

I was buying Mortal Kombat V, and a little kid and his mother were buying a WWF (WWE) game. She asked "Is this game too violent?" And the EB employee said "It has some violence, but its not very graphic. There is fighting of course but there is no death, blood or bad language" And then the EB employee looks over to me standing next to the mother and points at Mortal Kombat V and says "Now the game he is buying, is very violent" :) We grinned at each other haha

IT HAPPENS. The EB employees do their job... ESPECIALLY when the parents do their job and ask the right questions.

This is key. The rating systems work. The parents that use it, succeed at chosing games they find appropriate, and when in doubt, if they ask an EB employee, they will tell them in more detail!

The System works!!!!

The politicans are using this angle to win votes. They're trying to erode freedoms based on a non issue. We've solved this issue years ago with the rating systems. We solved this issue years ago in the 60s with music, with movies... we've been here time and time again...

ASK before buying... Use the rating system... USE your V-chip....

People need to stop blaiming the world for their lack of parenting... AND they need to stop letting politicians throw issues infront of us like peices of meat. These are non issues that have been solved time and time again.

I'm just affraid that this time we'll go the other way and completely ruin our free country.

They'll hire top men... TOP men...

[Jim in Buffalo]

I'm sure that they'll hire people tops in the field of study, just like Meese did when he set up his committee to investigate pornography back in the '80s.

Studying Violence in Games?

[Slipgrid]

Now I'm a liberal, and proud of it. Why am I a liberal? I like the whole liberty thing. But, Hillary and Joe don't seem to get that. Sure I don't want a big company selling harmful products, but lets please separate ones views of decency from harm.

In this article, they do talk about the CDC, and that is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. So, why this study? Is it to make sure the new Nintendo controller is ergonomically safe? I doubt it! It's to grab some of them "values-voters."

The government created rating system for the movies harms the creativity of the movies. To make sure the box office gets the max income, producers will curb the language, so the movie can earn a PG-13 stamp. At the same time, I'm an adult who likes adult issues and situations, but all of my R rated movies have sex scenes that are about as original as American cheese. They all look the same. Don't ruin the new media forms before they hit their potential.

Seriously, if the CDC is going to spend 90 Million plus USD to study the effects of gamming, why don't they study the effects that my monitor has on my vision. I don't care if someone else's child is going to be harmed by playing a game that their parents shouldn't have let them have in the first place. I do care about creative artwork... Artwork that isn't censored or cheese.

I think that if the Senate did a honest research of gamming and children, they would find that children who play video games are going to be faster, smarter, brighter, and will excel in every area... except maybe with the women.

If Only...

[Dr. Eggman]

If only they'd find that it turns out games are good for a child's development like/for...

Biligualism:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/ 0733237

Staving off Dementia:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/ 1543201

Bridge the gap between law enforcement and youths:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/ 031257

Good Values like trust:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/27/ 1851235

Showing that actions have concequences:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/26/ 225240


But unfortunatly, I can't see this study being anything but biased against games. At least it just a political show, designed to make the proponents look more moderate and appear to care about your children.

It's a philosophical problem

[John Miles]

I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function. Those changes in brain structure can lead to changes in behavior - that's the emerging consensus from scientists who research the brain.

The resistance comes from the implications of your proposition with respect to what it means to be a human being.

To the extent that books, movies, and computer games actually have a deleterious effect on adolescents' brain development, they are effectively the same as executable content. It's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

More specifically: if it turns out to be true that children can be "programmed" by media exposure alone, then everything Hilary Clinton has ever said about child-rearing being a collective responsibility suddently gains a lot of scientific weight. Any conservative who's tempted to jump onto this particular bandwagon had better think carefully about its direction and speed of travel. The bandwagon's next stop will be in the far-flung territories mapped by Huxley.

Re:It's a philosophical problem

[Colonel Panic]

t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.

Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I focus on philosophical libertarianism) meaning that they presuppose a non-deterministic universe. It's interesting to note that Free Will is a problem both in a deterministic and non-deterministic view. Most people are familiar with the problem of Free Will in a deterministic view, but completely unfamiliar with the problems of Free will within a non-deterministic framework. In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause. As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism: "He majored in CS because he was good at math and science and had an interest in computers... he had an interest in computers because his father was a computer scientist... his father was a computer scientist because..." -> the explanation starts to sound deterministic. However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.

Most philosophers who specialize in the isssue seem to be converging on a compatiblistic view (compatibilists contend that Free Will and determinism are compatible). At any rate, we do know that exposure to certain stimuli causes certain changes in the brain (often referred to as 'learning') - if we want to give up on that idea then let's just forget about the educational enterprise completely. If you contend that there are no effects then why do you bother to go to school? (or why do your parents send you) Why would you bother to try to 'learn' anything if there will be no effect on your brain (and by extension, your behavior)?

Same thing every generation of kids

[PCM2]

In the 1950s, comic books were the great evil corrupting our youth. One glance at the covers was enough to tell you that these things were leading to the downfall of Western civilization. They actually held Congressional hearings to decide what to do about the "comic book problem."

The result was that all the comic book publishers banded together and formed a voluntary rating system. In effect, they censored themselves. The new rules said that, since comic books were for kids, no comic books were allowed to include words like "teror," "horror," or "crime" in their titles; comics could not feature werewolves, vampires, or other elements of the supernatural; if any crime was depicted in a comic book, the criminals would have to come to justice for their crimes by the end of the story; and so on. The net effect was that an entire genre of horror and crime comic books went out of business. You know some of those comic books -- for example, Tales from the Crypt. There were many others, however. In its heyday, a comic book called Crime Does Not Pay outsold not just Tales from the Crypt but the entire output of that book's publisher (E.C. Comics) combined. It too went out of business, just months after Tales from the Crypt and the other E.C. horror comics, once the Comics Code took effect.

And so the world was safe. Kids stopped being juvenile delinquents, at least the ones who were able to stay away from that awful rock 'n roll music. It was a halcyon age, a veritable paradise, for the next 30 years or so.

But then in the 1980s, rap music came along, and heavy metal, and they were even worse than rock 'n roll. This aural poison proved to be all but irresistable to kids. So a brave group of moral citizens, led by the wife of future Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore, banded together to slap labels on rap albums, warning parents about the horrors inside. Again we were safe.

But now the evil rears its ugly head again -- video games! We tried using a ratings system on them, but nobody went out of business (unlike the comic book publishers in the 50s). How long can we as citizens stand for this?? Clearly something must be done if this cycle of moral depravity is ever going to end!

Fear and Wingnuttery

[SewersOfRivendell]

This is going to be slightly off-topic. Fair warning, mods.

You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat

1. That's because he's actually a Republican, and he's going to be replaced this year by the fed-up netroots. Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000. And what power? The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?

2. Fear is what motivates wingnuts. You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward. He's afraid of the terrorists, and so, like the Republicans who control the Congress at the moment, he's willing to give away our civil rights to the terrorists in exchange for some perception -- any perception, however false -- of safety. This is really important to understand, everyone. The wingnuts are AFRAID. The Shrub administration runs on fear.

A successful Democratic candidate in 2008 will be one who stands up and says "we are the heirs of Patrick Henry; we will never stand down in the face of a threat to our domestic tranquility. To the terrorists, I say: we will find you and root you out; we will never submit to your tyranny-by-proxy and to your threats. We will not surrender our civil rights."

3. Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything? If Karl Rove was a Democrat, some demented wingnut such as yourself would have long since assassinated him. Bush's approval rating is now far below Clinton's approval rating at any time during the Clinton presidency, and yet you don't see anyone firing bullets at the white house.

If there's anyone you should want to "punch in the throat," it should be Osama bin Laden. Where's your enthusiasm for that, where's your passion for finding and killing the real enemies of the state? Why is it all aimlessly pointed at harmless centrist targets like Hillary? Why not Laura Bush, who actually did kill someone (accidentally, mind you, according to the police record)?

4. I don't understand why Hillary sends all you wingnuts into incoherent rage. Discounting the tinfoil hat fairytales Limbaugh spews, she's a great match for the right wing: she has your sense of professional ethics and morality. Loves to pander to the rich and powerful. Loves to be right-wing. Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat. Loves Iraq as a US colony. About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare, but she's flexible like her husband, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. She's hardly the moral beacon that this country will really need after eight years of the corrosive Shrub and his Halliburton-fellating cronies.

Re:Fear and Wingnuttery

[sesshomaru]

Hillary, former Goldwater girl, is a neocon.

She's horrible on all the issues I care about.

She's in favor of that quagmire in Iraq

In favor of getting us into a losing war with Iran

Pro-Patriot Act(and probably brewing her own "improved" version in her cauldron as we speak)

anti-immigration

pro-banning video games...

I hate the woman. Ditto for Joe Lieberman. (Mega-Dittoes to Joe Lieberman.... heh... heh... heh...)

I don't think Lieberman (or any government official) is for fascist measures because they are cowards (though cowards they may be). I think they are after power, and they mean to get it, and 9/11 was a gift from God to them.

By the way, I don't think your post is off-topic at all. This is all about Hillary and Joe, I wouldn't be surprised if he was her running mate or Secretary of Defense or something. This anti-video game legislation just one part of a tapestry of misery they will weave in office.

Constitution continues to burn, news at 11

[dada21]

Interstate Commerce Clause used in the absolute opposite way to what the framers intended. I'd love to know how much of the money spent in these investigations goes to pork and preferential cronyism.

Re:Jesus fucking christ

[InsaneGeek]

I think you seem to have forgotten history about the Clinton administration (I'll have to do a little guilt-by-association to her husband as she wasn't in office for parts, but I think it's reasonable). It's not a voter ploy, she actually believes this crap.

1) COPA http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/
2) Pushed the theater owners organization to be aggressive on people under 18 seeing "R" movies: http://www.libertarianrock.com/topics/censorship/t heater_owner_pr_id_check.html
3) Called for regulation of video games http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/14/news_61290 40.html
4) Today's stuff
5) Past history with Tipper Gore

OT: Re:Forget the CDC and games..

[Experiment 626]

What I would like to know is why firearms is with tobacco and alcohol. Weapon, drug, drug. hmmm..

Because these products are subject to special taxes and special regulations, ATF was originally formed as a branch of the Treasury Department to handle this tax collection. In the post-9/11 govenment restructuring, the law enforcement side of ATF, which had by then become their main activity, moved over to the Justice Department, and the tax collection part remained with Treasury as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Re:prejudging the data

[illspirit]

Sorta like how Fredric Wertham's research "proved" comic books were evil to the Senate in the 50's? Or maybe something like the McCarthy hearings? Don't be silly, the government has obviously learned from its mistakes and would never go on such a witch hunt of a fishing expedition agai.... Or, umm, wait, who am I kidding.

But, yea, I wouldn't argue that violent games aren't bad for kids. However I will argue that research into any number of other things could be proven just as bad. Like, say, the institutionalized violence known as American high school football. But if one questioned the wholesomeness of that, and suggested it be researched, they'd be labeled a terr'ist or something.

Re:Do this study on the Bible

[Dunbal]

The Bible is full of horrible violence.

      I think history books should also be banned. Almost all of recorded history describes how unscrupulous individuals murdered their kinsmen to obtain power. These same individuals abused their power exercising their "royal perrogative" whenever they saw fit, and history is full of warmongerers who thought nothing of killing people to obtain more material wealth.

      I think this sets a bad example to children so all history should be re-written as "everyone used to go home after work and watch tv, every day, and when they got bored they went to the mall and maxxed out their credit card, since the beginning of time."

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of

[Ender Ryan]

I'm not afraid of the results of this study. The fact is, I don't even *care* about the results. What I *do* care about, and what we should all be caring about, is whether or not the results can justify censorship of video games.

The fact of the matter is, all forms of expression DO in fact influence people. That is the whole fucking point of expressing something in the first damn place! That has never been at issue with regards to freedom of expression. Banning expression because it's influential is a bad, bad precedent to set.

Adults are responsible for their own actions, and parents are responsible for thier own children. The government of the United States was designed to protect our rights, not limit them.

newsflash

[Ender Ryan]

Newsflash, most gamers these days are adults. How many times does it need to be repeated?

Washingtonspeak - English Translation

[Steve B]

The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process."

Meaning: These clowns intend to waste MORE THAN $90,000,000 on this idiocy.

Re:Help Me Feel Better About This.

[Surt]

The APA is the American Psychological Association. Basically it's a scientific organization of psychologists worldwide. The DSM is a collaborative effort. While the DSM is not immune to political influence, the process is reasonably well designed to try to keep the DSM as scientific as possible. As one example, in spite of intense political pressure, when research proved that homosexuality was not a disease, it was successfully removed from the DSM (it was included as such in an early edition due to widespread assumption that had not yet been researched).

Here is the APA's website:
http://www.apa.org/

Here is the dsm-v website, which describes the research going into the next DSM.
http://www.dsm5.org/

From http://www.apa.org/about/
With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

Gerald P. Koocher, PhD is the 2006 President of the American Psychological Association. He currently serves as editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior.

Dr. Koocher was elected a Fellow of twelve divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Koocher has more than 25 years of APA governance experience--spanning from his service on APA's Ethics Committee as a 25-year-old to his completion in December of two five-year terms as APA treasurer, an office that includes membership on APA's Board of Directors. He has been president of the Massachusetts and New England Psychological Associations.

Ontopic reading material

[lpangelrob]

If you're interested in more material in the same line of thinking, here's a good column that got published in the Chicago Tribune today. (Reg. required after 5 hits to the Trib website).

In a nutshell, it describes the anecdotal reactions of four to six year olds of various R-rated movies in movie theatres (the ones specifically mentioned are The Ring and Eurotrip). The column ends with the subject of the column (not the columnist) thinking of laws banning children (she thinks of 4-6 year olds, clearly everyone here would think 18 years and under) from watching R-rated movies, period.

A good quote from the column is this:

"Kids up to the age of 6 or 7," she said by phone, "don't know the difference between fantasy and reality. What they see, they experience as if it were happening."

What's more, she said, "Young kids are very responsive to visual images, and grotesque, violent visual images are inherently scary. If they see a monster or a vicious-looking villain chasing somebody with a knife, they don't make any allowances for the fact that this is somebody's dream or that it didn't really happen. Until their brains develop further, they can't put anything into context."

Also consider that, again anecdotally, children did not have nearly the same reaction to watching images of 9/11 as adults did. They didn't think it was real. Would the reaction have been the same in 1950?

Anyways, I'm not really pushing for or against any particular viewpoint at this time, other than I can't see why the CDC shouldn't at least look at the issue.

Re:Instead of Universal healthcare, we get this..

[rk]

"I am worried that one of the first questions in emergency care is "How are you going to pay?"

I've not come to praise our healthcare system, because I believe it's screwed beyond belief, but this doesn't happen. We were in a bad car accident last June, and they air evaced my wife, she got treated at an emergency room in trendy, yuppie, expensive Scottsdale, Arizona, subsequently released, and was never once asked about how she would pay.

The three illegal immigrants driving drunk in the car with the stolen plate also got airlifted to the same place and presumably got treated there, too. I don't know what happened to them, and you'll have to forgive me if I currently find it hard to care about their situation. I guarantee you they didn't have health coverage of any kind, but I know that my wife's airlift alone was just shy of 11,000 bucks.

Now, I'm sure that if I didn't contact them with my (fortunately very good) healthcare coverage information they eventually would've come knocking, but no matter how it's done, we will pay for healthcare, be it taxes, insurance premiums, bills or combinations of all three. But they don't ask even close to upfront in a (real) emergency. I imagine if you go to the emergency room with a headache or "my foot hurts" then it's possibly different, but in that case I say GOOD! A little bit of pain is not an emergency, and anyone who does that is putting a load on system that's designed to treat emergent, life-threatening problems for a triviality.

prohibition

[Myopic]

ha ha. now the computer gamers will know how the marijuana smokers feel.

what you need to understand is that there doesn't need to be a *factual* harm to justify prohibition, there only needs to be a *perceived* harm. sorry, that's democracy.

not to nitpick, but. . .

[mosb1000]

"the vast majority of people are complete idiots"

I've found that most people are of average intelligence. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks you're so much smarter and more special than everyone else. If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be able to look around you and analyze your surroundings objectively. When you really consider the points of view of others, you realize that every one is basically the same intelligence. Usually those who reach the conclusion that the vast majority of people are idiots have only considered one kind of intelligence, like scientific knowledge or mathematical ability. I'd hate to live in world populated solely by scientists and engineers, we wouldn't survive very long.

shot 'em if they can't take a joke

[wtoconnor]

Some people have said that I play too many violent video games. It makes me so mad that I want to whip out an uzi and shoot them but I DON'T. Instead I go down town roll a couple of bums or scare whores by pretending that I'm going to run over them with my car. Then I usually feel much better so I can home and my mom makes me dinner. But then she keeps naggin me about getting a job and I feel like getting a carrot pealer and stabbing her in the eye but I DON'T because I go to my bedroom, lock myself in, find my game controller which is usually in the semi-clean pile of underwear on the bed, not the 3 day old at the foot of the bed. I play GTA until 3 or 4 AM, jackoff and go to sleep. My friends do pretty much the same thing and aren't anymore violent than I am. F-- you guys.