Post: Fight to Give Parents Control Over Ultraviolent Content Will Continue in California
Fight to Give Parents Control Over Ultraviolent Content Will Continue in California
Citing concerns that certain labeling restrictions in the legislation raised First Amendment questions, Judge Ronald Whyte on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction against the ultraviolent video game law that had passed through California’s legislature with wide bipartisan support.
This is an unfortunate, but minor, development in California’s fight to give parents more control over what kinds of video games their kids have ready access to.
A preliminary injunction is just that: preliminary. We are confident that when a full hearing on this issue is held and the judge hears from the parents and teachers who deal with the effects of these games on a daily basis, the necessity and constitutionality of the law will become quite clear.
The fact is that California’s video game law has nothing to do with restricting speech. It has everything to do with giving parents a tool to protect their kids from ultraviolent content.
Common Sense Media will continue to support the lawmakers who recognize the importance of this kind of legislation at both the state and federal level.
There are 33 replies to this post
Date: December 23, 2005
I think what you guys forgot to mention is that the judge mentioned in his ruling that the video game industry is probably going to succeed in their lawsuit. Give it up, people. Stop slandering the video game industry with your lies (like insisting that the most women in video games are treated as prostitutes. Jim, I'm going to keep calling you out on that until you retract and apologize already.) and work with them, not against them. It's over.
Link: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx
Date: December 23, 2005
Okay here is an idea, I wonder if these laws will have a better chance to survive if instead of banning the sale of video games to people under 18, you lower that age to 16. After all 16 year olds get tried as adults if they commit a serous crime, they also have the right to hold a job and in most cases they are able to drive a car. The age of "18" isn't a be all and end all, after all even though you are an adult at 18 you still cant drink alcohol until you are 21 so there should be wiggle room in my opinion.
In my opinion there is a big difference between a 12 year old and a 17 year old, if I saw a 12 year old play GTA I would be upset, but if I saw a 16/17 year old play GTA of any other video game I wouldn't be anywhere near as outraged.
After all if the stat can try you as an adult at 16 then the state should assume that a 16 year old should be able to tell the difference between a video game and real life.
People would say that we restrict porn to people under 18, and that is true but lets face it, wee as a sociaty are much more accepting of violence than sexual content so maybe if you do two things.
#1 lower the age to 16 on these laws.
#2 don't just single out video games, also apply the same standard to violent movies and other forms of media, a bi reason why these laws get overturned by the courts is that there is a blatant double standard between regulating violent video games, and NOT regulating violence in movies and other forms of media.
Date: December 23, 2005
"We are, of course, unsurprised by Judge Whyte's decision to enjoin the law and pleased that his decision came before the holidays were upon us. Our position has been, and shall remain, that Government should not be involving itself in the entertainment decisions that consumers make. Our members are already voluntarily committed to a self-regulatory process and games should be treated no differently than music or movies in how they are merchandised, sold and enjoyed. Judge Whyte's preliminary injunction reaffirms our long-held position that these laws are unconstitutional and unnecessary. It is unfortunate that politicians have chosen not to respect the will of the courts and of the people, and it is our continued hope that they will now, given the extraordinary amount of precedent, choose to instead work proactively with us." - Hal Halpin, pres.. IEMA
Link: http://www.iema.org
Date: December 23, 2005
I comment on this ruling on the blog.
Biggest line:"It is uncertain that even if a causal link exists between violent video games and violent behavior, the First Amendment allows a state to restrict access to violent video games, even for those under eighteen years of age."
This seems pretty bad for the pro-censorship crowd. Even if they were to prove that there is a link between games and violence, the 1st Amendment would STILL apply. At least by this judge.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 23, 2005
Yes, please apologize to the poor, multi-billion dollar industry that profits from marketing extremely violent products to kids. They don't have anyone to look out for them.
Date: December 23, 2005
You know...
I would should like to see some of those millions. The fact is that the money of which you speck goes to a very few games and the rest of us fight for the scraps.
And yes, I don't have anyone looking out for me except myself.
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 23, 2005
Judge Whyte also had a very good question when the arguments for an injunction were first raised:
"If there was evidence that certain video games promoted disloyalty, selfishness, or spitefulness, could a government restrict minors' access to those games? If not, how does aggression differ from disloyalty, selfishness, and spitefulness?"
The California Legislature is using an extremely broad definition of "harm" in trying to salvage this law, as they know they can't prove a link to violent behavior.
Date: December 24, 2005
I guess I should have known by now that "Common Sense Media" is a contradiction in terms. Their continuous anti-constitutional vitriol is nothing less than pathetic. I'm going to write Leland Yee a VERY hostile, but civil letter when his stupid anti-video game law is finally overturned, and to let him know that some active voters don't like what he's doing.
I'd fault Schwarzenegger too, but Schwarzenegger isn't about issues-he's about staying popular as I originally voted for him during the recall, but the Leland Yee bill he signed is what made me turn against him.
Link: http://www.slzusd.org
Date: December 24, 2005
Isn't a "VERY hostile" but "civil" letter a bit oxymoronic, speaking of contradictions of terms?
Date: December 24, 2005
:wipes hand:
My work here is done. Merry Christmas, and remember, the big fat M on the lower left of video game packaging does not stand for "math".
Date: December 25, 2005
Anonymous, pay attention to section 3 which refers to the correct synonym since apparently you only know a partial meaning.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/hostile
Your attempt to spin makes you politican-like, as that's a skill Leland Yee uses anytime he wants to make a point based on conjecture.
Link: http://www.slzusd.org
Date: December 25, 2005
If the nicest connotation of the word is "very unfriendly," coupling it with "civil" is still oxymoronic.
I hope you aren't an English teacher...
Date: December 26, 2005
You obviously can't connect the dots...no wonder you post under the name Anonymous.
Link: http://www.slzusd.org
Date: December 28, 2005
10 things wrong with the effects model.
Link: http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm
Date: December 29, 2005
One more thing. There's a game out called Need For Speed: Most Wanted. The main point of this game is to disrespect police officers, engage in illegal street races, engage in police chases, disable squad cars, cause wanton destruction, break every traffic law that exists, and basically be a pain to law enforcement. Oh, wait, you don't kill any police officers in the game so it can fly under the radar. The anti-video game crowd is a bunch of hypocrites...
Link: http://www.ea.com/nfs/mostwanted/us/index.jsp
Date: December 29, 2005
Yep. The media have no effect.
Why do companies spend billions upon billions of dollars on ads each year? Why do 14 year old girls want to wear halter tops and mini skirts after they see Britney Spears wearing the same thing? Why do drunken frat boys lie in the middle of the street after seeing a similar scene in "The Program"? Not because the media can affect people, that's for sure.
Is social science hard science? Admittedly, no. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Date: December 29, 2005
Nobody is saying the media has no effect. What we are saying is that the effect is oversimplified by studies with little to no ecological validity. The experimental designs need a complete overhaul before anyone can start making connections to real-life dangers and violence like many people do.
Date: December 29, 2005
And yet we don't regulate halter tops and mini skirts...
Link: http://thesins.blogspot.com
Date: December 30, 2005
Stetson, I find it funny how you ignored what I mentioned about Need for Speed: Most Wanted.
Date: January 4, 2006
Need for Speed is awesome.
Date: January 4, 2006
Anonymous- I know it is. It's just the questionable content in that game flies under the radar, and that just screams hypocracy to me.
Date: January 5, 2006
It is awesome but it makes me want to drive fast.
Date: January 10, 2006
Why haven't you guys censured Jack Thompson yet? The longer you're silent on this, Jim, the more I'll take it as support for that lunatic ambulance chaser.
Link: http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics
Date: January 22, 2006
Does Common Sense Media support this?
Link: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/thompson/thompso
Date: January 24, 2006
I don't know if Ferrariman still checks this site, but I was wondering if he had a link to any studies that show violent games do not impact aggressive behavior or thoughts. He's posted critiques of the methodology of a number of studies, and he's cited information from the video game industry questioning the research, but I wonder if there is any nonpartisan research out there suggesting that video games don't increase aggression. I'd like to see a link to a press release directly from a university, if possible.
Date: January 24, 2006
Yeah, I still have this site bookmarked. I've provided a link that references research that backs up my assumptions. Yes, I'm linking to an Entertainment Software Asoociation piece, but the research mentioned in it is nonpartisan and independent. Read it, and give me your two cents...
Link: http://www.theesa.com/files/GameYouthViolence
Date: January 24, 2006
Both the US Surgeon General (Satcher) and the Washington State Department of Mental Health issued statements to this effect. I'll try to find those. In the meantime, here are some more criticisms of the studies used to show that video games increase aggression. Some were mentioned before, but I don't think most were.
Most are correlational, including the brain scan study. fMRI studies are by definition correlational, as they only show which areas of the brain exhibit activity without forwarding a cause for it. Furthermore, that study had no control group (ie subjects whose brains were examined as they played non-violent video games), without which we cannot begin to infer cause and effect relationships.
The studies that do purport to show a causal relationship have several flaws that call their validity into serious question. Most are conducted in a laboratory setting. I ask you, do you regularly play video games in a laboratory while being watched by men in white coats? The setting is too contrived and artificial.
The terms "violence" and "aggression" are not interchangeable. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Violence automatically carries negative connotations: images of rage, anger, and physical harm to others. Aggression is more of a gray area. It is manifest in physical violence, on the sports field, in the arena of salesmanship, and is in some cirumstances a benefit rather than a harm. The studies don't make this distinction.
The studies make no effort to actually measure aggression, let alone violence. Aside from the sterile laboratory setting, the researchers rely on weak proxies for aggression, rather than measuring aggression directly. Some of the silliest measures used include hitting dolls, popping balloons, giving noise blasts, roughhousing/pretend play with violent themes, and recognizing aggressive words on a computer screen more quickly. None of these will predict whether someone will violently, physically attack someone else out of rage, and no study has yet been conducted to set up that exact occurrence.
Date: January 24, 2006
Mr. Blond's critcisms seem to focus on the methodological weaknesses of individual studies, but he conveniently fails to acknowledge that studies using a variety of methods (labratory tests, longitudinal surveys, fMRI scans, etc...) have all found negative outcomes from video game play. And I would argue that fMRI studies are by defenition CAUSAL, as they measure the brain's direct reaction to a stimulus. The Michigan State study pitted the fMRI results against footage from the game play. So when the player shot an enemy, and his fMRI results showed an increase in activity in a certain part of the brain, clearly it was the video game stimulus that led in the brain activity.
Ferrariman's list of citations from the ESA has a couple of interesting points, but I have a hard time relying on the ESA's representation of the studies. When you boil a study down to three sentences and present only the most damning quote...well, I have the feeling that if Leland Yee put out a similar document, you would but up in arms about hipocrisy and misrepresentation.
Anyway, here's my point: I get the feeling that were you on the other side of this issue, you'd attack the sources on the ESA document just like you attack the current crop of research.
I'm asking for an actual article or press release from a study that clearly shows no aggressive outcomes from violent video game play
Date: January 24, 2006
I am aware that several methods are used. I was zeroing in on the studies that are particularly used to justify game legislation (about the longitudinal study: subjects dropped out since the beginning, and the CORRELATION to criminal behavior was based on only three individuals).
fMRI studies are correlational. All it shows is when one stimulus is presented, the brain activity demonstrates a certain pattern. This study does not rule out a possible intermediate step caused by viewing the game stimulus, which in turn causes that particular activity. Even if we are to assume that the video game did cause that response, there is still another major problem: How do we know that activity was a response to the violent content? How do we know it's not just from the challenge of the game, or the light patterns? Would someone exhibit activity in different parts of the brain if they played a non-violent game? No such control group was present, so we can't say it's the violence itself that causes that reaction.
Finally, this neurological evidence does not necessarily mean video games will make someone more prone to commit a violent act. The subjects did not behave in a hostile manner when they were scanned, so we cannot infer that that particular pattern of activity will always lead to anti-social behavior. This won't tell us anything about an actual influence on whether it makes someone more or less aggressive.
Date: January 25, 2006
I agree that the neurological evidence from fMRI studies in no way guarantees that the subject will exhibit actual aggressive behaviors.
But you've got to be kidding when you suggest that the stimulus of the video game isn't causing the aggressive brain patterns.
Here is what the study shows: When you're just walking along in the game, the part of the brain associated with aggression doesn't do anything. When you shoot somebody in the video game, your brain starts lighting up in aggressive patterns. What could possibly be leading to that response?
I think I detect a hint of intellectual dishonesty, Mr. Blond...
Date: January 25, 2006
I was a psychology major in college, and I learned extensively about the fMRI, including its strengths and weaknesses as a research tool. I was always taught that it only shows a correlation. If you want confirmation, here are the emails of two of my former professors who work extensively with fMRI's as part of their research. They do not study the impact of video games, but they are well acquainted with the device, and will surely clarify any questions you may have about the correlation/causation issue:
Dr. Andrew Yonelinas
apyonelinas@ucdavis.edu
Dr. Tamara Swaab
tyswaab@ucdavis.edu
Date: January 29, 2006
SallyPA,
I already posted a response to what you claimed, on the other article, but I'll post up that response here for you. Also, I think it is ridiculous of you to ask us to show studies that show no link between video games and violent behavior. You are using the "guilty until proven innocent" logic here. If you use this logic, then everything would be regulated. Can you show us a study that shows no link between violence on the evening news and violent behavior? Can you show us a study that shows no link between Shakespeare and violent behavior? Can you show us a study that shows no link between the Bible and violent behavior? No you cannot, so I guess all of these items are guilty of causing violent behavior if we used your logic. If you wish to know the truth behind the MRI studies, then look at the statement Dr. Nusbaum made to the court in Illinois, a statement that the judge agreed with when throwing out the Illinois video game law (http://www.wish-tv.com/pdf/Nusbaum-Declaration-Final.pdf). He stated that he can replicate the same brain MRI images using an activity with no aggressive behavior involved. Anyway, here is my post that I made which you haven't responded to:
To SallyPA, and others who support this bill:
I notice that all of you are ignoring posts that ask how come we aren't regulating R rated movies and music with parental advisory warning labels on them.
Every Federal Trade Commission report that has come out has shown children are able to get their hands on R rated movies and music with parental advisory labels on them MORE often than M rated video games. Yet legislators don't seem to mind. They only target video games and claim it is to protect kids and empower parents. Nonsense. Parents of the nation should feel insulted that these lawmakers feel that parents everywhere care only about video games and nothing else. Chances are if a parent is concerned about the content of video games their children play (and I hope that is every parent), that parent is also concerned about the movies their children watch, the music their children listen to, the tv shows they view, and yes, even the books they read, yet bills that only target video games are being supported by these concerned parents. That makes no sense. What you really should be saying is "I do not support this bill until the lawmakers start including other mediums and materials to regulate, not just video games, because parents are worried about a lot more than video games their children are playing". THIS would be "common sense" and would likely cause lawmakers to start including other mediums. Bills like this do nothing more than treat parents like political puppets for lawmakers looking for political gain. Ask yourselves this, if this bill were about protecting kids and empowering parents, and if this bill were as constitutional as you all claim, then how come these lawmakers have a hard time including other mediums (movies, music, books, literature, newspapers, etc) to the bill? If we are giving parents the opportunity to make media decisions for their kids, this opportunity should include a lot more than just video games. Parents looking to make media decisions for their kids are not that narrow-minded.
Also, about the studies that SallyPA mentions (MSU, Michigan). To those studies, I would say it would be a good thing to call them "junk science". Here's why. Just look at the video game bills across the country, the Illinois bill, the California bill. You will notice that one of the reasons they feel video games should be regulated is that video games allegedly "reduce activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, which is responsible for controlling behavior". Now, you claim these studies are not junk science and that they are done at reliable institutions. Look at the webpage you gave (http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2532/content.htm), specifically look at the first picture which shows a brain scan image. What do you notice? You notice there is activity in the brain when people play video games, in the FRONTAL LOBES! These bills claim "a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes" when playing video games, yet this image shows activity happening IN the frontal lobes. Which is it? Also, the game in question is called "Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror". A war game with the title "Assault on Terror" is being used to show violent games are "bad" for kids. We live in a society where a war movie like "Saving Private Ryan" is allowed to air on national television, uncut, uncensored, unedited during the time of day when most children are watching, yet the "protect our children" crowd never came out and condemned ABC for airing the masterpiece movie. It seems that a war movie somehow doesn't "harm" children at all, yet surprisingly, a war video game called "Assault on Terror" allegedly does.
My concern is that lawmakers and researchers are throwing "studies" at parents, scaring them into thinking video games are bad, knowing that most parents probably won't bother to look at the studies in detail.
No one is saying SallyPA and other parents who are concerned with the video games their children are playing are crazy or are monsters or anything like that. In fact, parents who are concerned with what their children are doing are what I would consider the ideal good parent. Parenting isn't easy. But parenting doesn't become easier with bills that single out video games, using bogus studies that actually contradict what lawmakers have been saying all along (frontal lobes argument), when parents are concerned about a lot more than just video games. You're right, SallyPA, when you state kids may not be ready for all content that is suitable for 18 and 20 year olds, but this content is not only found in video games, it is found all over the place - movies and even in literature.
Video games are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to what parents are concerned about. Why not go after the entire iceberg by including the regulation of movies, music, television, books, etc. if bills like this are truly constitutional and all about empowering parents?
Date: January 31, 2006
I can't speak for SallyPA on this but...maybe, JUST MAYBE, the researchers at MSU used a negative image of the brain scan to highlight where the activity was surpressed.