Slashdot Mirror
Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland
strwrsxprt writes "Game Almighty recently had the chance to speak with Senator Leland Yee about his views on the validity of California Assembly Bill 1179, which was designed to criminalize the sale of Mature rated games to minors and require retailers to keep Mature games separated from other games. He also shares his thoughts on everything from the effectiveness of the ESRB and the place AO games have in the market, to the movie industry and their rating standards in relation to games. His answers might just surprise you."
A politician in front of an audience says things catered to that audience. Ever watched a video of Hillary Clinton in front of, well, anybody? Same nonsense, they know what you want to hear and they'll say it. The bill is still bupkus and he is still an anti-gamer. This him in front of a group of social conservatives and he'll cash in all he can on having supported a bill "restricting those bad videogames."
I wonder if that's a good thing, though...
As reasonable as many of his answers were, I disagree with the entire notion of "sheltering" kids from the very real and ubiquitous violence around us, whatever form it's in. On top of that, you will end up with the *wrong* people in prison if you criminalize something like selling ESRB-rated M games to kids 17 and under.
Somehow I wish this guy was as loony as Jack Thompson so he'd be easier to debunk and toss to the wayside. There's nothing more dangerous than someone who can think [somewhat] logically and still pushes for harmful policy.
I like basketball!!1!
"Sen. Yee: No. Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents."
I think he kinda nails it right there. Sure, there should be involvement by the retailer, the ESRB, and the parents, but if that is all failing? What then? I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one. of course the same could be said for a fair amount of the movies these stores stock. But the rating system should not only be there to inform parents of minors, should they even know about it, but it should also be a guide as to what the minor can buy. i have no problem with that.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Clearly this Yee character is from an alternate universe, where politicians consider policy with a decent amount of reflection and don't feel the need to demonize the horreur de jour.
He makes an especially interesting point in that, unlike movies, it is unrealistic for parents to provide guidance for their children throughout the entire gameplaying experience because games are pretty damn long-playing compared to comparable media.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Clearly, Sen. Yee (and the supporters of his proposed legislation) believes that the ESRB does not do an acceptable job in their role of regulating the availability of violent video games to minors, and that therefore the government should get involved. Take from that what you will: levels of government involvement in private life, comparative success of government and private enforcement, etc.
Personally, I'd have to say that the government is just as likely (if not more so) to do a lousy job simply due to inexperience and increased outside pressure (i.e., lobbyists). It's not that I don't think they could do it - I just don't think it's worth scrapping what we have and starting over. And, my own little pet peeve: Sen. Yee never mentioned why the ESRB "can not be trusted". And that's just not right.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
I still disagree with his position based on the precedent Congress allowed with the MPAA and what they push at children. As a column by Gregg Easterbrook pointed out this week, we have an interesting hypocrisy when it comes to our media (Do a find for "MPAA" to skip to the relevant part). The example he used is that movie studios are making an effort to remove on-screen smoking, while retaining the grisly and horrific on-screen torture/death of teenage girls. So the message we seem to be saying is if you want to torture a human being, that's fine...but don't you dare smoke while doing it! Similar issue in terms of video games...it's okay to see someone get shot...but pressing X to do it rather than watching it is simply too much!
The problem is much deeper than videogames and their "interactivity", the problem is that the government has allowed parents to abdicate their responsibilities as parents by attempting to protect the children FOR the parents. In the long-term, this encourages lazy parenting where they DON'T pay attention to what their kids are exposed to because "the government will decide what's safe and what isn't" which inevitably causes "Innocent Little Johnny" to see boobs somewhere and the parents throw a hissyfit. This in turn drives a further "need" for government regulation and you end up in a slippery slope further and further down the line.
Another blog by Mr. Wil Wheaton (Hi CleverNickname!) points out that he got carded trying to buy Dead Rising. Now, I'd bet his not ever carded going into an R rated movie, or at a bar, or if he was to buy cigarettes...any of these activities arguably being as "dangerous" to kids as anything else, but they card him to buy a video game?
This is what it boils down to for me: No state or national government has any business trying to legislate morality, period. That is a responsibility for the local communities to decide upon for themselves, not have crammed down its throat from on high. Our country would be a lot better off if the people in Washington, D.C. worried about what is happening to our economy and foreign relations rather than worrying about what videogames people are playing and where people go on the Internet.
Of course, that's based on the silly ideal that our government is there to serve anyone but itself...but one can dream, can't they?
CInterviewText Politician::CompleteInterview(MediaInterview interview)
{
foreach(Question askedQuestion in interview)
if (rnd() > 0.5)
this.qaPairs.AddIfNotExist(askedQuestion
else
this.qaPairs.AddIfNotExist(askedQuestion
return (this.qaPairs.GetElaborateAnswers(LANGUAGE_ENGLISH));
}
It's only version v0.1 because I still need to program in the "Think of the Children" directive and the ability to flip-flop on questions' answers when politically expedient.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Why must private corporations try to muddy the waters of government?
This article explicitly talks about the government's role in private enterprise.
Regardless, I agree, keep private enterprise, religion (in every sense of the word), and government independent of the others.
I got the impression that this policy was a labour of love. This is one of the policies he happens to be passionate about, one that he's thought about, and may possibly be one of his goals in becoming a politician. He's a child psychologist, so I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a private interest in the effects of games on children in the course of his practice.
This guy is no ordinary "think of the children" type. He actually does think of the children, and truly believes he is helping them. Refreshing indeed.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
While I disagree with placing M-rated games separately from other ratings (go to the video store, they don't do that THERE), I do agree that we need regulations preventing sale of M-rated games to minors. The movie industry has already done it, and games need to do it also.
Well that's good to know! I'll make sure that my parenting skills are top notch for 2 hours a day to ensure that I complete my "good parent time quota" to ensure that my son doesn't watch a bad movie. And ya know, when 'Cars' finishes, if 'Debbie Does Dallas' winds up in the DVD player, who am I to stop him? I mean, I made sure that he behaved himself through the entirety of 'Cars' I'm good for the day.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Out of curiosity though, if this theory has been proven, and games grow more and more violent each year...where is the corresponding increase in violent crime rates? Most numbers show violent crime rates descending overall. From 1993 to 2005, violent crime has dropped from 4.1 million incidents to 1.8 million, according to the US Department of Justice. Of course, as a government body they may be horribly inept at counting or I could be reading their data wrong, but that seems to be the sentiment echoed repeatedly by actual studies of this thing known as "reality".
I do believe that's the "It hasn't been proven" argument. The laboratory says that videogames increase violent tendencies, but reality says that violent crime is going down sharply. The fact that the media loves to harp on even tenuous links of violence to video games (see also: VA Tech shootings, where such links were proven to be non-existent) also hurts the "it's been proven" argument, as there are few (if any) documented real-world cases where videogames were the cause.
As Yee himself says, they can be a contributing factor. However, I'd be willing to say that crazy people will always be crazy, and if games don't set them off, something else will. The problem isn't the games, it's that the person is crazy. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.
A better idea, rather than passing laws and forcing compliance would be "Leave the retailer alone to stock their store as they see fit, the parent can shop elsewhere for lil Johnny and Janey." This, to me is like city wide smoking bans in bars. People feel entitled to everything and it's up to the government to provide it through a handout or a law prohibiting an something they feel "icky" about (and most likely they simply don't understand it in the first place).
I guess I have a hard time seeing wisdom legislating this shit. Governments have more important things to take care of than holding a parents hand. This is just lip service to help them out with their next election. "We'll take care of it for you. You go buy them that new Xbox and don't worry, it'll be ok."
Second, as a non-parent (not that I hate kids, I have been in relationships involving them and enjoyed them), I'd really like a politician to say "If I do this for you, parents, what do I give the non-parents in return for spending tax money from EVERYONE on this?" because quite honestly, I personally feel this is a waste of time on the grand scale. They're not helping the majority at all, but simply an "important voter demographic" and anyone that says otherwise is full of shit.
Third, even with his "It's up to parent's to decide and buy the games" this is still broken thinking. So now stores won't sell your kid a game and you won't buy it, but what if Timmy goes over to Stevie's house and plays it there because his parent's bought it? You going to ask for a law mandating parent's provide an inventory of contents of their home so you can be sure you approve, because well, you're too busy to ask them?
And if you can't take the time to read IGN or pick up a magazine to find out what's in a game, to be an informed parent in other words, it's up to someone else to make sure it's branded and labeled with the content you agree to and only in this one part of the store with a curtain hiding it from view.
Parents of this sort take note: Don't let your kids on the Internet. One Google image search will fuck them up and shatter the fairy tale world you're creating for them. Better outlaw Google!
No sig for you!!
I fully support this bill **IF** the classifications for movies and video games are held to the same standard.
Ie If Manhunt is an 'AO' game, and the next GTA is an 'AO' game, then then entire Die-Hard series should be re-classified as NC-17. Similarly for the majority of horror films, such as the current 30 days of night, for example.
The REAL problem is that there is a double-standard.
Are people who are violent in RL (because of stress, disappointment, low self esteem, etc) more prone to playing violent games, or are people playing violent games more prone to be violent in RL?
Just saying that a significant number of group X is also in group Y doesn't cut it. The question is, in what direction does the graph point?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lumping all humans under the age of 18 into the same legal category is retarded. Selling Gears of War to a 16 year old is one thing. Selling it to a 10 year old is another. Selling it to 5 year old is yet another.
I do not think it would be entirely unreasonable to have some sort of ID card for minors that basically can be used to signify that they may be considered an adult for certain purposes. Not buying guns or voting. But for things like Violent Videogames, adult movies, cigarettes, and alcohol. Make it a pre-requisite for driving a car. Set it up so that the minor needs parental consent to obtain it, and you can let the parents decide when their children can start to be treated as an adult.
END COMMUNICATION
As a gamer, I'm appalled that anything approaching legislating censorship of my beloved pasttime is even considered. As a new parent, I'm terrified that I don't have a way to control my new offspring 100% of the time. Neither of these positions are very moderate, nor should anyone expect them to be. Human nature has a way of emphasizing threats to our control and safety, and the only way to rationally come up with a conclusion is to discount both emotions.
Creative Freedom must be protected. I think this is paramount to the continued advancement of society as a whole. Even content that you don't personally agree with should be with should have a fundamental right to exist and be disseminated by a mature and rational public.
Parental Control must also be protected. We put locks on our doors for a reason -- so someone who is *not* acting in a mature and rational way cannot harm us. These should, however, tend towards the unobtrusive and simple to avoid any conflicts with the above protections. I can't, for example, blast white noise at a political rally to silence a speech I don't agree with. However, I also shouldn't have to have that speech broadcast into my home unabated.
The Law that Mr. Yee proposed has it's heart good intentions, but is critically flawed in protecting the rights of the artist. At best it's a goodhearted but kneejerk reaction to the GTA scandal (his take on ESRB's "failure") but doesn't take the industry or technology involved into account. At worst it's the first step towards an even more invasive Nanny state, where no one is responsible for their own actions and we blame the messager rather than the criminal.
Accountability should end where another's responsibility begins, and if we bury our heads in the sand and try to find an easy target to blame every time something bad happens, we'll end up much worse off for it. Galileo, Socrates, now Rockstar Games? Who else should we eliminate to protect ourselves from imaginary evils? If the government really wants to improve the situation they should be lauding Gaming as the next great art form, not holding it back. David and the Venus Di Milo, Halo3 and Grand Theft Auto.
Correlation != causation. All this proves is violent people like violent entertainment. I bet they watch violent movies too! *gasp*
I think Mr. Yee explained pretty clearly why his law is not some sort of brutal attack on the freedom of game makers. His law is all about trying to keep retailers from selling mature rated games to children. It does not restrict at all the type of games that you can make or sell or buy if you're an adult. It does not restrict the rights of consumers, except for a very specific case if you're a minor. We already restrict the rights of children in many ways because they're often not educated and experienced enough to make good choices. The age cut-off of 18 is sort of arbitrary, but there's not really any other feasible way to handle it.
You put locks on your doors to keep the crazies out and away from your kids, but you also put those little cabinet locks under your sink to protect your children from possible harmful results from their own curiosity and lack of understanding. While we certainly can and should discuss how harmful violent games truly are for children, there's not much harm to be done to put a little safeguard in place here as well.
How that damages the right of the artist is not clear to me. Unless your "art" in some way relies on subjecting children to mature content without parental oversight, but that doesn't seem like a very noble endeavor, and I'm not really interested in using the term "art" to protect acts that would otherwise be criticized.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
As a relatively new dad, yes, I'm worried about the content that my son is going to encounter and want to buy.
But I don't want to make that someone else's problem. That's my problem, that problem belongs in my family, not in some politician's pocket. The government will probably do a lousy job of enforcing this. It will always be a political tool, subject to the whims of whomever needs to get a few minutes of media time.
I'm probably going to say, "Sure, it's fine to play Gears of Mayhem IV, as long as I can co-op with you, but stay the heck away from that money-sucking Disney crap."
I view any abbrogation of free speech rights as very, very problematic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
Well hey, if OeLeWaPpErKe on Slashdot says it, it must be true!
I agree that games are art, and I disagree with the particulars of Sen. Yee's law, but I doubt you're going to change anyone's mind by implying that the theocratic censorship of proven scientific fact or execution for thought crimes are on the same level as having a non-government body re-rate your video game.
And his law will be totally ineffective. If you go back and look at the publicized cases of video games being "sold to a minor", you'll find that in all of them the store did not sell the game to a minor. They sold it to a legal adult, in all the cases I can recall a relative of the kid involved and most often a parent, who then gave it to the minor. Any law targeting the store will simply not do anything about that. You'd need a law targeting the parents, and I don't see him proposing such a law.
If you go to a video store that isn't one of the few big chains, you may see a door that says "Adults Only - Must be 18 or older to enter". Not everywhere chooses to rent those movies and the same thing would happen if M-rated games were required to be displayed in a different location than all of the other games. Some stores would just say, "Screw it" and not sell them at all.
1. No there isn't. Cite please.
... to the satisfaction of just about every psychologist in america it HAS been proven)
2. Which test subjects? Cite please.
3. What? Cite.
Or what, exactly is your opinion ? (and please don't bring up the lame excuse "it hasn't been proven"
Cite?
Who says that it is "all failing"? Retailers have basically adopted a policy of "if an employee breaks ESRB rules, hes fired instantly", the ESRB has launched SEVERAL marketing attempts to raise awareness on ESRB rating and parents have... maintained the perception of "video games are for children". Who's failing and what should be done about it?
When it comes to your children, ignorance can only be an excuse for so long. Video games have been around for (more or less) a solid 20 years, if (most) parents haven't educated themselves on the ESRB at the very LEAST, its their own fault.
My immediate thought - just make it illegal for a minor to purchase anything without a parent present. No loopholes, no first (or any) amendment concerns. That will make him happy, right?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I would strongly argue against such a law. If a parent wants to purchase a game and let their child play it, then that is their perogative. Hopefully they're being careful enough to ensure that their child is ready to play a game with such content, but either way, that sort of thing is not up to the government to decide.
I doubt I would ban my children from playing Grand Theft Auto until they were 18. I know lots of people who played it at a younger age than that and were not negatively affected by it. But I wouldn't want my 8 year old child playing it, and I would appreciate stores not making it easier for my child to get his hands on the game.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
If you are not familiar with this game, you aren't going to understand. And probably not understand the true depth to which gaming can descend.
Custer's Revenge was released one morning in 1983 I believe. It was pulled from every store by noon. If you haven't heard of it, that is probably why. It very nearly sold out of the modest number of units produced. If it had been left on the market it almost certainly would have been the best-selling video game of the time. Well over a million copies.
It was a vile, disgusting game. The objective of the game was very simple. You moved a figure wearing a cavalry shirt and no pants across the playfield to reach the squaw tied to a post. Then, by manipulating the controls, you would have the cavalry soldier repeatedly rape the squaw, accumulating points.
Do you understand why some control might be useful?
The stores already won't sell that game to your 8-year-old. Maybe a 17-year-old, or a mature 16-year-old, if the store's lax in carding, but that's about it. And as I said, all the cases that've been the focus of the debate have involved a parent or other relative giving the kid the game. So either there's no problem for the laws this guy proposes to address, or if there is a problem 99% of the time it doesn't involve the store.
I've been a gamer since I was 5 years old. In the 16 years since that time, I've seen the ratings system evolve. The industry has evolved. I've always believed that games should have real ratings.
Parents don't care, or they don't know. NOT EVERY GAME IS FOR CHILDREN!
As someone who will become a father in a few months time, I don't want my kid playing GTA or Manhunt! When he is well adjusted enough to understand such material, then he can play it. There are parents who let their 10 year old kids play with such games. Those are bad parents.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Hmm, now I am not a statistician but I found your assertion intriguing so I did a few searches. According to most statistical definition a strong correlation is defined as a relation ship between two random variables X and Y with a correlation coefficient having an absolute value above 0.8 and less than 1. I don't suppose your "studies" show this kind of a positive correlation over a large enough sample size, do they? If so i would love to see it.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
"As Yee himself says, they can be a contributing factor. However, I'd be willing to say that crazy people will always be crazy, and if games don't set them off, something else will. The problem isn't the games, it's that the person is crazy. Treat the problem, not the symptoms."
What exactly are you saying ? We should not outlaw violent games, we should wait and see who buys them, and then force them into a psychological program (or kill them ?) ?
Because if this isn't what you're saying, then I'm not reading correctly. Clearly you suggest doing something about these people, and you give a handy way of identifying them.
What I am saying is that blaming video games isn't really addressing the problem. The problem is *not* violent games or comic books or rock/rap music or movies (and all of them have been blamed at one point or another), the problem is mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals who are having reactions to these forms of media.
Consider this. Halo in its various incarnations is a very violent game. Since it's initial release on the original Xbox, millions upon millions of people have played the game, and to date not one incident of violence has made it's way into the national headlines with any sort of link to the game. Why? Because the norm is that people understand the concept of game versus reality. As another example there's World of Warcraft, 9 million subscribers, probably many more than that have played it...also a game that is focused on "killing" various monsters and players. While the addictive nature of that particular game has lead to people causing their own personal tragedies (such as the Korean parents who left their child unattended and unnourished), that is a far cry from violently attacking people on the street.
There are however some people who cannot, for whatever reason, make this distinction and in terms of being prompted to violence by violent media, these individuals are the problem. These people who's grasp on reality is tenuous for whatever reason, not the specific media itself. The Columbine and VA Tech and similar shootings were not *caused* by video games or music or movies or anything else, they were cause by people with these mental/emotional issues falling away from their human support network (or not having one) and being spurred into action by a random stimulus. Sure, you can find specific contributing factors, but such people have the potential to be powder kegs to begin with, and if you "dodge the bullet" by not having them play violent games, who's to say a violent movie or aggressive song won't have the same result? If you suspect your child is one of these people, or a friend or a loved one, then you should seek to get them help. Not worry about what they're buying at the store.
Getting back to the initial topic of the story, punishing millions of people who understand things for the actions of one or two aberrations from the human norm, which is what most forms of this legislation effectively do, is beyond ridiculous. Forcing retailers to play parent is not a real solution to any problem. Instead of wasting the money on these laws, their inevitable overturning and appeal which costs the taxpayers millions in legal fees and court costs, why not put that money towards improving the flow of communication to the parents?
If you want to "protect the children", then you should start with the parents, not the stores.
The problem is that it's not "1 or 2 in millions" that start acting violently in reaction to video games, but a large majority ... oops.
While there are millions of incidents of violent crime annually, again citing the Department of Justice statistics since 1993 they've taken a sharp drop (over 50%). Since most of the video games that people complain about being violent came out well after 1993, the theory that violent games translate into violence hasn't held water so far when compared to overall crime trends. If you were going to try and make any case based on the statistics from the Department of Justice, it'd be that violent video games LOWER violent crime rates, but as we all know correlation (two trends happening at the same time) does not equate to causation (A was caused by B).
However the idea that violent games carry over from the game world to the real one seemingly can't even get correlation down, let alone causation. One concept might not equate to the other, but one is certainly a prerequisite to the other.
You can whine about your own theories till the sky turns blue. They -believe it or not- are not accurate.
... except when it says something you don't want to hear ? Yet you claim it's Bush that's "killing" science. Only one thing is killing science ... people like you attacking it for saying something they don't like.
You claim to believe science
You want your games, regardless of the victims it may cause, and you don't want to pay for the damage afterwards. That's fine by me actually for an opinion. But why not be honest about it ?
I'm actually still waiting for the first concrete evidence to be produced that violent video games translate into actual real-world violence. All the studies have produced is increased violent tendencies, but that appears to fail to translate into actual violence. You rely on isolated lab results the put forth a theory, but these results have yet be exhibited in reality. As much as you might want to cling to the concept, it remains in the world of theory. If you want to say that video games cause violence: provide actual real-world evidence that it ever has. Surely it won't be hard to come up with the miles of crime reports caused directly by video games if it's as widespread as you claim it to be.
The real world shows that there has been no increase in violent crime since violent games started coming out in droves, and in fact has been quite the opposite. That is a verifiable FACT, not a theory. While I do not believe a link exists between the two, these two facts taken together do strongly refute the theory you cling to so dearly. If video games lead to increased violence, then more violent games being made should lead to more violent crime. This is the underlying idea you support so dearly, and yet again...it's not exhibited, anywhere. Reality says there is no link between violent games and real-world violence. If you have actual case studies that prove otherwise, feel free to link them. Until then, you're blowing hot air about how you can't deal with the fact that reality doesn't agree with your soapbox topic.
For me, it's not so much about the games. It's about governments attempting to legislate morality rather than leaving it in the hands of individuals where it rightfully belongs. If parents don't want their kids to play violent videogames, then I support their right to make that choice and applaud them for taking an active role in their child's development even if I might disagree over specifics. To tell a retailer that they will be criminalized for not being a parent, however, is beyond ridiculous. Business and government have no business in teaching morality, especially given that both are rife with examples of a complete lack thereof. Moral behavior starts in the home, not in the store.