Slashdot Mirror
Senate Hearing Recap
Gamespot has a look at what went on this week in the Senate hearings on game legislation. Some dramatic testimony was heard at the event, from both sides of the debate. From the article: "The crux of Smith's testimony is that, like film or books, games are a form of expression. 'Video games feature the artwork of leading graphic artists, as well as music--much of it original--that enhances the game's artistic expression in the same way as movie soundtracks,' he said. 'These games often contain storylines and character development as detailed as [and sometimes based on] books and movies. These games frequently involve familiar themes such as good versus evil, triumph over adversity, and struggle against corrupt powers.'"
From TFA:
... [could take] my brother's gun from him in the police station, shooting him and then killing two other men in a matter of less than two minutes," said Strickland. "A game such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City could and did teach him how to do this."
During his emotional testimony, Strickland lashed out at games' impact on society. "As I gather more information on the games and the people who call themselves 'gamers,' I could see how someone like Devin, who at one minute did not put up any resistance
Anyone who thinks GTA can teach someone how to shoot has either A) Never played GTA or B) Never fired a weapon, ever.
Dave
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Its just censorship under the veil of protection. Give games the rating based on the same standard as in movies, and block access to them, just like with movies.
Put some of the damn responsibility back on the parents.
First, songs taught us how to kill cops.
Then Beavis and Butthead taught us how to kill each other.
Then wrestling taught us to suplex each other.
Now games teach us to fire guns.
Its a general problem in america (and yes, I'm american, and texan at that) where we can't and won't own up to the ability to control our lives. I don't know where it started, but thats a common theme over the past 20 years. I'm curious where the next phase of this is going to go.
I'm going to patent something called resonsiblity-for-ones-own-actions. I will charge a disgusting amount of money to license resonsiblity-for-ones-own-actions so NO ONE will ever be able to claim resonsiblity-for-ones-own-actions again! Soon it will fade into distant memory! Thank god for this great nation of ours.
Born on a mountain, Raised in a cave!
These anti-game activists keep saying that video games increase aggression and violent behavior. However I find that hard to believe considering US Crime Rates have in fact been decreasing since videogame began getting popular in the early 90s.
FTA: The last legal basis Saunders cited will be the most familiar--namely, that playing violent games causes "harm" to minors. He said [...] "the correlation of media violence with real-world violence is as strong as that for secondhand smoke and lung cancer, lead exposure in children and lower IQs, use of the nicotine patch and smoking cessation, and asbestos exposure and cancer of the larynx."
That may be the case, but if it is, why is he only arguing for the restriction of violent video games? Let's have proper laws to protect kids from violent TV, violent song lyrics, news reports about real-world violence, references to war in Presidential speeches, and anything else that might upset them.
Maybe the Video Game Voters Network is finally having an effect on our congressmen.
If you haven't done so already I would strongly encourage all of you to sign up here: http://www.videogamevoters.org/
They are clearly negligent!
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
* A reverend, whose brother was killed by a self-described gamer. Has no scientific degree, but argues that games must be causing violent behavior.
* A psychologist who believes videogames may have a negative impact on children, without specifically stating that they do have a negative impact.
* A professor of speech communications, who testifies that the impact of videogames on children are possibly overblown. (Here's a link that has an excerpt of some of Dmitri Williams's testimony.)
* A research scientist who states that violent media have an impact on children, and states that videogames may have a deeper impact by being more interactive, without saying that they are more influential.
* A videogame industry member, who points out how videogame laws rarely stand up to judicial review.
* A politician who plans on endorsing a new bill coming out against videogame violence. Has no scientific degree, but argues that videogames must be causing violent behavior
* A lawyer who has represented the videogame industry, who points out how these laws rarely stand up to judicial review.
* A lawyer who argues that there may be means to restrict sales of games to minors despite First Amendment claims.
So according to this hearing, the videogame industry is nothing but lawyers attempting to get judicial activist judges to repeal these laws on flimsy laws, and the counter-media side had a lawyer to provide a counter-argument. Researchers who said that videogames may have an effect on children and thus advocated for new laws outnumbered the one psychologist that pointed out that what we know is incomplete. And the pro-videogame crowd got no response to the ad hominem attacks from two people who know nothing about videogames except to say that they must be causing harm, as if having the Reverend on the panel would contribute anything to the discussion but rhetoric.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone not think a national bill involving the sales of videogames to minors is not now inevitable, considering just what kinds of testimony Congress is going to spend their time listening to?
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
"Good vs. Evil" is not a theme. It's a cliche, and one of the worst.