Escapist Publisher Says Banning Games Is Slippery Slope
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What people fail to realize is there is a nice little system to keep games out of minor's hands: the ESRB. But the parent needs to read it and determine if the game is suitable.
Joe "Average" Parent: READ?! DETERMINE?! But that takes... takes.. *shudders* the dreaded "w" word.
Me: Work?
Joe "Average" Parent: GAAAAAAH!! NOOOO! *ears act like they were dipped in acid* We need the government to do that FOR US! Lest we start taking... *cringes* the "r" word...
Me: Responsibility?
Joe "Average" Parent: AAAAAAAIIIIIEEEEE! *Bursts into flames*
OT: At least the CEO of this site is helping defend the medium. I never like "slippery slope" speeches, but sadly most of them have a bit of truth to them. Especially how this will set legal precedent for future cases against things "corrupting our youth" (translation: the new government scapegoat, translation: things middle-aged/old people think is bad despite them having NO understanding .)
Joe "Average" Parent: READ?! DETERMINE?! But that takes... takes.. *shudders* the dreaded "w" word.
Me: Work?
Joe "Average" Parent: GAAAAAAH!! NOOOO! *ears act like they were dipped in acid* We need the government to do that FOR US! Lest we start taking... *cringes* the "r" word...
Me: Responsibility?
Joe "Average" Parent: AAAAAAAIIIIIEEEEE! *Bursts into flames*
OT: At least the CEO of this site is helping defend the medium. I never like "slippery slope" speeches, but sadly most of them have a bit of truth to them. Especially how this will set legal precedent for future cases against things "corrupting our youth" (translation: the new government scapegoat, translation: things middle-aged/old people think is bad despite them having NO understanding .)
We need more of this perspective shared with the wider world. Yes, Alex does have an opportunity to make his views known here on The Escapist, but here he's just writing for an audience of gamers. Gaming is increasingly becoming relevant and we need to do a better job of thoughtfully and intelligently projecting an enthusiast's perspective into the public discussion of the value and place of games in our society.Kapol said:
Yeah, I agree with Steve, if he's limiting his message to the Escapist, he's just preaching to the choir. We all need to bring our opinions to a wider audience so people who are ignorant about the issue will learn the facts from someone who has actually played a videogame in their life.Steve Butts said:
I agree, and I think more well-thought out opinions like this getting a wider audience helps our (game enthusiast) image as a whole. We need more of this to happen to help get the message across that not it isn't only 15 year olds who swear a lot who love video games, and that many of us are intelligent and reasonable adults who just happen to enjoy or love games. I just was pointing out that it felt a little bit strange, reading his opinion from a newspaper on the site that he owns. But then again, he would just be preaching to the choir if he said it here.Steve Butts said:
... Okay, is it wrong that I'm almost kinda rooting for California now? I mean, American Idol is really really bad, and if we could get it banned...
Nah but seriously I hope California fails. There are plenty of crappy pop stars without AI (Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber, etc etc).
Nah but seriously I hope California fails. There are plenty of crappy pop stars without AI (Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber, etc etc).
Every entertainment media has had to pass this proverbial kidney stone before; violent/provocative lyrics in rap in the early 90s; Rock and Roll had to cope with this culturally in the 50s and 60s. Multitudes of literature throughout our nation's history prior to that even.
I'd say that this public banning litigation was inevitable. Though as a society, we have the power to change our minds, we must seek to never establish double-standards. Doing so would be discarding years of progressive reasoning.
I would have hoped that this pointless little anti-gaming crusade would have died along with the prior generation of politicians. But that did not come to pass it seems, so again as gamers, we must engage in pointless arguments.
I'd say that this public banning litigation was inevitable. Though as a society, we have the power to change our minds, we must seek to never establish double-standards. Doing so would be discarding years of progressive reasoning.
I would have hoped that this pointless little anti-gaming crusade would have died along with the prior generation of politicians. But that did not come to pass it seems, so again as gamers, we must engage in pointless arguments.
There can be no debate; anything spoken, written or created in any medium is protected and cannot be banned or censored by the government. We allow the klan and the new black panthers to spew their hate, so anything in a video game should be protected too regardless of how offensive or disgusting it is or how many people don't like it, and that includes that rape game people got uptight about.
That doesn't mean businesses have to carry them if they don't want to, but the government has no right placing boundries on creative expression or expression of thought.
Dammit there has to be some place that still cares about that, most western nations now are nanny-states that ban offensive cartoons and websites because a majority finds them offensive and tells artists they can't create certain things.
EDIT: just to point out, people in the early 20th century said the exact same things about comic books; that they harm children and make them violent. All new media is resisted and hated.
http://www.thecomicbooks.com/nsp1-21.html
That doesn't mean businesses have to carry them if they don't want to, but the government has no right placing boundries on creative expression or expression of thought.
Dammit there has to be some place that still cares about that, most western nations now are nanny-states that ban offensive cartoons and websites because a majority finds them offensive and tells artists they can't create certain things.
EDIT: just to point out, people in the early 20th century said the exact same things about comic books; that they harm children and make them violent. All new media is resisted and hated.
http://www.thecomicbooks.com/nsp1-21.html
I appreciate your opinion, but I'm afraid that you are misinformed on this issue. R-rated movies and M-rated games have the same regulations (a self-regulating system which rates and restricts the sale of inappropriate content to minors from people who understand the content). The ESRB has the same duties to games as the MPAA to movies, but no one is complaining about movies. This issue isn't whether we should allow violent content to fall into the hands of minors, this is whether we should have the government make the regulation, or have the industry make the regulations.ReverendJ said:
When people "flip out," as you say, it's not to the idea of minors not being able to buy violent games, its to the ghettoization of gaming as a medium. Because of first amendment restrictions, the government can only legally restrict the sale of any content if it is deemed "obscene." The only other regulated medium that falls into this category (that I know of) is pornography. Thus, if this ban passes, then videogames will be forever (or at least for the foreseeable future) classified as being legally equivalent to pornography, even when it's content can have notable artistic and technical merit (which pornography demonstrably lacks).
The bigger anger in the issue revolves around the fact that, because no causal link has been found between violent videogames and harm to minors, many politicians are using the violent videogame debate as a convenient scapegoat to sway anti-videogame voters to their platforms.
The biggest irony in all of this is that the ESRB is very effective at its job, with an 80% compliance rating (to compare, movies have a compliance rating of about 55%, and music a measly 35%). So when people complain that videogames are unregulated, they are provably wrong, and the games that found their way into the hands of minors were most likely purchased by that person's parent/guardian- yet it is somehow the government's role to regulate the medium when concerns arise?
If you want any more information on this side of the argument, I would recommend (as you are already on the escapist) going to the video section and watching a few episodes of "Extra Credits" these are very intelligent videos, made by people who have researched the issues and formulated their opinions carefully. They are very good at explaining the gaming point of view, far better than I can, and are entertaining as well.
I hope you can reconsider your opinion by considering the point of view of video-game enthusiasts who wish to see the medium grow and flourish without arbitrary censorship stifling it in its infancy.
Best wishes.
Excellent points, let's make it clear to the nanny state that we're big boys and girls and can handle interactive media.
Naahh, that doesn't sound that intimidating to me. But it does make me curious; 1984 and other dystopias seem to have ingrained a kind of fear of a quickly rising and absolutely opressive regime into the minds of the umm... more "well-read" - or at least internet-frequenting populace.
Or maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to comment on something that has already been adequately covered by others.
Or maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to comment on something that has already been adequately covered by others.
I believe his points are valid and understandable. Frankly, this issue should concern all of us, because any time First Amendment rights are changed or abrogated in any way it sets precedent.
I agree with the message in this article entirely.
Given that I am responding though there is a big "however" that "however" is that I do not think being deliberatly absurd does nothing but appeal to people who already agree with you, when "we" are trying to win a battle that has anything but a certain resolution at this point.
While I agree that any law like this is going to establish dangerous precedent and snowball, I think it does nobody any service to liken the interactivity in games to things like "American Idol". There is a definate differance in the level of immersion between
voting on something and guiding something constantly through a process. I think most people realize it on both sides of the fence as well.
Oh surely, when something snowballs it might lead to ridiculous extremes like that, but that doesn't change that such examples are ridiculous when you use them in the present and don't really earn you any points (so to speak).
I also tend to think that involving absurd parallels in your case is usually a sign that you have nothing reasonable to use, so you need to sort of off handedly mock the other side. I think I'm far from alone in that, and since that's not where "we" are at right now I don't think that's the message that should be sent.
We need to keep things reasonable, and too the point. I don't think many genuinely neutral observers would have a positive reaction to something like that.
Given that I am responding though there is a big "however" that "however" is that I do not think being deliberatly absurd does nothing but appeal to people who already agree with you, when "we" are trying to win a battle that has anything but a certain resolution at this point.
While I agree that any law like this is going to establish dangerous precedent and snowball, I think it does nobody any service to liken the interactivity in games to things like "American Idol". There is a definate differance in the level of immersion between
voting on something and guiding something constantly through a process. I think most people realize it on both sides of the fence as well.
Oh surely, when something snowballs it might lead to ridiculous extremes like that, but that doesn't change that such examples are ridiculous when you use them in the present and don't really earn you any points (so to speak).
I also tend to think that involving absurd parallels in your case is usually a sign that you have nothing reasonable to use, so you need to sort of off handedly mock the other side. I think I'm far from alone in that, and since that's not where "we" are at right now I don't think that's the message that should be sent.
We need to keep things reasonable, and too the point. I don't think many genuinely neutral observers would have a positive reaction to something like that.
The UK revised the law in 2008 (as part of the manhunt fiasco) to close a loophole; so games have to be rated if they meet the same criteria for panel review as other media* and that the rating must be adhered to by vendors. The restriction of video and video like media thing has been kicked back and forth through EU parliament in one form or another since 1984 so chances of it passing this time? honestly couldn't call it.Woodsey said:
The difference is that in the UK is everything deemed none educational and potentially damaging to any audience has to be rated. We also have a review panel in place with guidelines on how everything should be rated that manages to get through everything that comes out. Also the BBFC is a mostly autonomous none government organisation not the government itself so the and they have to drag something through the courts to actually have it banned (although they are allowed to prevent the sale until a decision is made which gives them enough teeth to be effective).
In the US everything no media is regulated and they believe that nothing should be for fear of censorship. The fact that self regulation is expected and socially required points out that they need some form of regulation but to force it on one industry would clearly be unfair and detrimental to that art form.
Whenever this discussion comes up Americans almost never consider a national regulation of all media nor the possibility that restriction isn't the same as a ban. And for some reason I keep hearing the opinion that a panel couldn't possibly review and rate everything to ensure it's limited to suitable audiences.
It seems Americans as a whole think all censorship is bad, Which I am inclined to agree with. However saying whether something is generally suitable for particular stages of human development and restricting the sale isn't censorship in of itself so long the product isn't outright banned.
After all in the UK the sale to under-age types is illegal but giving the product to a minor is fine if your their legal parent or guardian (ie: you believe they can take it and you know them well enough to make that decision).
Regulation doesn't mean they have to ban anything just recommend who it's good for and who it's generally not good for and allow an adult to make the decision restricting the sale just ensures it's the adult that makes that decision.
Yes, children are poor decision makers and need responsible adults to aid in life's choices. It's why all the "think of the children" bullshit carries weight and why people look back in later life and say "when we were young and stupid". Lack of experience and unfinished mental development are not the minors friend.
*except books, apparently those are all educational. Go figure.
Thank you, I've been trying to figure out if I should give a damn about this issue for a while now and thanks to your explanation it does seem that frankly, I shouldn't.Unrulyhandbag said:
Censorship should be avoided.
Regulation (especially impartial) should be encouraged.
I see no way these two statements can be mutually exclusive and pity those poor unfortunates who live under a system of laws that can make it so.
Crazy Americans...
Still reason to be concerned, the US is a big market and the American cultural perceptions on the issue are there for a reason.Cartographer said:
Under their laws you may actually see games being banned in individual states, if any person claims it offends them, if games are placed under regulation. That would almost certainly end with conservative games making for that market.
I'm sure the European games market would carry on as normal after a while but a lot of the money would be gone from games that might not be saleable in the US.
From our stand point it looks like the Americans need some laws that recognise self regulation only works if an industry can persuade the populace that its regulation is doing a good job. They seem to need to establish normal values for regulation to prevent arbitrary offence getting something banned for no good reason. But obviously that's a huge issue that only the Americans themselves can decide on.
All we can do is sit back and see what happens; hope it works out for the positive, through one means or another, in the end.