Politician Takes Enlightened Stance on Gaming

GamePolitics is reporting that one Australian would-be politician is taking an enlightened stance on gaming in general, and especially with respect to censorship. "Censorship is odious because it removes community choice. Censorship says that the thought is the action; that the common person can't distinguish between depiction and actuality... Censorship says, 'Let me decide who talks.' And games are talking. They're talking very loudly, to a great many people, in strong and clear voices. They're speaking in places that have never read a newspaper and in houses which have never listened to politicians. It's okay to be worried by what games are saying. It's okay to disagree. But it's not okay to stifle those voices. It's not okay to kill the game."

Comments

That's good, but...

[Daetrin]

On the one hand, you're in Australia, where that really needs to be said. On the other hand, you're in Australia, good luck getting the ratings board there to listen to you.

Heard an interesting story...

[Thelasko]

from a minister this weekend. When he was a boy he lived in a rural part of Kentucky. There wasn't much to do around there, and video games weren't invented yet, so his brother used to "playfight" in the woods with some of his friends. They would take shotguns and shoot towards each other, making sure they were either out of range of the shotgun, or behind a tree. His brother was "playfighting" when one of his friends misjudged his distance. The results were similar to those of Harry Whittington after hunting with Dick Cheney. The injuries weren't life threatening, just very painful.

Upon hearing that story I decided that violent video games probably prevent more injury/death than they cause.

Re:Heard an interesting story...

[Anthony]

Two stories from the seventies in South Australia.

Kids under twelve sometimes had slug guns, especially those in rural and semi-rural areas.

One kid told me of slug gun fights they would have, hiding behind logs and taking shots at each other. Once during a "game" one kid stood up and shot just as another poked his head around a tree. He lost an eye.

Another boy was sitting in his bedroom with his Dad's .22 aiming it all over the place. He then lined up his mum through an open window. She was putting washing out. He pulled the trigger. Why the gun was loaded, noone knew. One shot through the eye killed his mother.

I myself at about the same age found an uncle's slug gun and despearately tried to find slugs for it. I settled for cocking and firing it unloaded, even though I heard it was not good for it.

I don't know what guidance these boys had about gun safety. Sometimes it is lost when a bunch of young boys goad each other on.

Shooting at pixels on a screen sure beats real life for irresponsible boys.

Respect for the individual?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Respect for the individual? He'll never get elected in today's political climate.

People who actually give a shit about individual rights don't seek power over others. By trying to become a politician, he's just another Boromir who thinks he can do good by taking the One Ring.

Re:Self filter?

[Original Replica]

Before too long you have a kid kill a bunch of people and if the media determines the kid played violent video games then they sensationalize it.

Or the kid listened to Heavy Metal, or played Dungeons and Dragons, or dressed funny and wouldn't stay off my lawn. They never seem to point out the things like "started fights regularly in school" or "had a history of sudden violent outbursts" or "used threats of suicide to manipulate others" or "would mutter angrily to himself while polishing his gun"; but if the kid plays violent video games Watch Out!!!

Re:Are games really just a depiction?

[Tenek]

Actually, I would say it's less acceptable to portray a torture scene in a TV show like 24. People get it into their heads that it's ok for government agents to do such things to people. Particularly politicians - see http://www.slate.com/id/2195864/