GH Editorial: Violent Games Laws: Uninformed, And On The Rise

Blog Style or Sort By Most Bumps This... Day Week Month Life

GH Editorial: Violent Games Laws: Uninformed, And On The RisePosted 4:06pm Thu Feb 16, 2006 by The Gaming Horizon Archive Tags: archive, editorial, politics, laws, violence

This article was originally published on Gaming Horizon, GameBump's predecessor. It was written by Evan Lahti.

Late last month, Texas politician and gubernatorial candidate Star Locke proposed a $10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics and a 50 percent tax on soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, and sucrose." Likewise, Locke suggested a 50 percent "grease tax" on "all food prepared by deep-frying or cooking in any form of oil or grease for human consumption." Locke justified his radical tariffs, stating to the Amarillo Globe: "I take the position that the founding fathers took: that the power to tax is the power to destroy."

One can only imagine the ensuing riots at speculation of a $9 quarter-pounder, but though Locke's levies are illogical (if not unconstitutional), one final suggestion topped the cake: to pass a 100 percent sales tax on violent videogames into law.

While gamers shouldn't fret about paying $100 for the next Halo or Grand Theft Auto update, they should worry that Locke's "solution" is indicative of a growing trend in American politics - more than ever, legislators are pushing for laws that illegalize the sale of violent and mature videogames to minors.

However, there’s a key question these bills can't seem to answer: "Is it really Congress' job to determine what video games are appropriate for minors, and which are not?"

The Florida State of Representatives thought they had an answer in HR 647, another member of the game-violence judicial bandwagon, which was recently submitted to the state congress. The bill states that "minors who are exposed to depictions of violence in videogames are more likely to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent, antisocial or aggressive behavior."

The bill goes on to claim that "even minors who do not commit acts of violence suffer psychological harm from prolonged exposure to violent video games."

"Prolonged exposure?" This sort of rhetoric begs the question - are lawmakers taking a candid look at how video games affect children, or are they just staring at the sun? Using the same language we use to describe the physical effects of hard alcohol and narcotics to talk about video games is a frightening sign of what may be in store for free speech.

Pro-regulation figureheads like Jack Thompson would have us believe that games are mental intoxications – that each time I pop Killzone or Resident Evil into my console, I’m subjecting myself to content that will ultimately brainwash me into a volatile, aggressive sociopath. In a January 8 article published this year on The News Tribune, Thompson claims: "Teens […] have a neurobiological developmental deficit that can, in the worst case, turn them into "Manchurian Candidate" killing machines."

Thompson’s pseudo-scientific indictment of the gaming industry is remindful of the language used in prescription medication ads: "…side effects of playing Counter-Strike may include nausea, dizziness, or assaulting your friends and family against your will." …Perhaps we should consult the Surgeon General as well.

Are there games that are inappropriate for minors? Absolutely. Does it mean that every 17-year-old should be prohibited from buying games because they haven’t sufficiently “matured” enough to handle certain content? Is a generalized, age-based ban an appropriate and effective way to protect our children from violent games?

Unfortunately, one reason these questions remain is the fact that our legislators are largely ignorant of video games as a medium, and are instead informed by a few highly-specified and over-dramatized examples. Titles like Manhunt and Mortal Kombat, while clearly members of the "mature" category, have redeeming artistic qualities, but are construed as typifying an industry-wide epidemic.

Of course, it hasn't helped that the gaming industry has grown so quickly. Not 20 years ago, having consoles and personal computers in the household was a radically new idea; in 2004, the gaming industry posted revenues of $10 billion – more than Hollywood. Culturally and otherwise, gaming's footprint hasn't quite been measured by society, and it’s part of the reason we’re seeing unrealistic regulations.

But if we reflect, the recipe seems familiar: new technologies, new forms of expression, and new ways of perceiving reality have a predictable way of muddling anyone we elect into office. Film, television, and radio represent some of our most highly-regulated businesses; and politicians would rather attack industries that subjectively “pollute” our minds than the ones that pollute the very air we breathe.

But though our industry may have expanded rapidly, legislators need to realize that the gaming generation has grown up. Far from being an activity reserved for children, today’s average gamer is 30 years old, and only 35 percent of game players are under 18 years of age. According to a study by the Entertainment Software Association, even “women over the age of 18 represent a greater portion of the game-playing population (28 percent) than boys from ages six to 17 (21 percent). As games have become less of a "children’s toy," lawmakers have stayed stuck in the past. In short, if gaming continues to be confined to contexts of immaturity and adolescence, video games and their creators will continue to be scapegoats; scapegoats for killers like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of Columbine, Colo., whose actions the media quickly correlated with "Doom," labeling the game as training for their horrific crimes.

If the term "scapegoat" seems too harsh, examine an excerpt from the Baxter Bulletin, an Arkansas newspaper. In an article about Jacob Robida, the recently-accused offender in an attack at a gay bar in Massachusetts that killed a police officer, the paper published this quote from Massachusetts Prosecuting Attorney Paul Walsh: "My look at the search warrant (for Robida's home) was that the investigators turned up no video games. […] From the information we have here, there is no proof video games were involved."

Thank goodness that Robida’s PlayStation or Xbox weren’t accomplices to his hateful act. But who suggested a game-crime connection to police? None other than Jack Thompson, the Miami attorney that seems to involve himself in national investigations when it suits his interests.

Inexplicably, videogames have become society’s insanity plea for murder, violence, and other crimes. Will increased game-regulation really attenuate these problems? Likely not, but it begs a more important question - how do we strike a balance between allowing freedom of expression and understanding a medium for what it is, but also aiding parents in choosing what their child should or shouldn’t be exposed to?

Ultimately, parents’ and law-makers’ understanding of video games has to mature. Politicians seem under the impression that each time Joe twelve-year-old blows away some poor virtual soul in Halo, they’re going to take it into the streets. But the way people interact and are affected by video games isn’t that simple.

Individuals that commit crimes "inspired" by video games have more deeply rooted problems - an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. While games with violent content could serve as an impetus for troubled youths, they ignore the "bigger picture;" the fact that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.

More generally, society needs to take the initiative to hold a view that recognizes videogames as a legitimate form of communication and entertainment, not a system designed to drill teenagers on the intricacies of executing a drive-by shooting. People seem unwilling to accept the idea that society's ills are rooted in more significant problems than computer-rendered characters engaging in a virtual firefight.