The People Vs. Common Sense

The People Vs. Common Sense
10/03/2005

by jkdove on 10/03/2005

Throughout much of the world today, mass media is prevalent to such a degree that it has become a cultural influence as deep as our languages and ethnic histories. The multifarious mediums through which human beings extend their inner being, their very sense of personal identity, are a teeming tangle of noise in the airwaves along which this "Age of Information" extends its influence into our homes, our minds, and our lives. Since the dawn of the human ability to create media as a means to communicate or simply to visualize the poignant tide of human thought, we have suffered the criticism of our fellow inhabitants within our communities. While endeavoring to bequeath our exclusive equities unto the world, we are often chagrined by remonstrations designed to terminate what many believe to be our God-given right to pursue. Parallel to the advent of society, there have been laws and law makers, empowered by militant services and the citizenry of which they are comprised, created and enforced to impose the will of the commonality. Parallel to that have been those who questioned whether or not those in power are in fact speaking for the commonalty and to what ends.

AND SO IT BEGINS

Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government to protect the well being of its citizens from the cultural influence spawned from the very citizens which it seeks to protect. By the statute of ethical journalism, it should be duly stated that SB-0416 has been enacted to identify, protect against and subsequently prosecute those found in violation of committing willful acts of "dissemination of certain ultra-violent explicit matter to minors" [1]. While it is difficult for many to reasonably argue that the children of this country should be excluded from partaking in adult material, the State of Michigan, or more specifically, Senator Alan Cropsey, has found it necessary to deem these violations liable to civil and criminal penalties. The question is then raised as to why the video game industry has been singled out by both the States of Michigan and Illinois, to the point of spending the taxpayers money to combat an issue which is argued against by experts from both sides of the coin. California may soon become the third state to follow suit, though perhaps the inertia of such a decision is strengthened by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his close ties to the entertainment industry, particularly that of his body of work within the film industry.

The aspects of the Michigan law that are most demonstrative of the commutative nature of the American people are those that hold certain individuals liable under civil and criminal penalties. The question raised among analysts, lawyers, and journalists alike is why the movie theatres of America are not held to the same standards. A statement on the issue by Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Entertainment Software Association, brings to light the very heart of the issue:

"It is illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. How can you treat a video game based on James Bond any different than a book or movie based on the same subject matter?"

The ESA, operating with the full support of the gaming industry, will soon file suit against Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, on the basis that "similar laws were previously found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Washington State, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees"[2]. Though we can only speculate that the decision to sue Michigan and not Illinois rests on the enactment of civil and criminal penalties, we cannot say for certain that a follow up lawsuit will not follow in the event of the law being overturned. The Governor's and Senator's Office could not be reached for questioning by their own constituents here at GamerGod.

The Motion Picture Association of America instituted the ratings system on November 1, 1968, in order to address the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April of 1968, which upheld "the constitutional power of the states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films that could not be denied to adults." The effective result was that movie theatres across American did indeed put these ratings to use by disallowing minors access to films that were off limits to children. The main contradiction today is that movie theatres, their owners, and their employees are not held liable, dictating fines must be paid for violations, as no such laws exist.

Let us pause at the MPAA ratings for a moment, and fast forward to 1994 and the induction of the Interactive Digital Software Association, now known as the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ERSB, into the halls of parental guidance history. The goal of the ERSB is to enforce ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the computer and video game industry, primarily by assigning ratings to video games much like those the MPAA applies to the film industry. Much like the MPAA ratings, the ERSB ratings were put into place to arm the parents with the tools they would need to protect their children from inadvertently partaking in games that should rightly be marketed and sold to adults. Until the Illinois law went into effect, the public appeared to manage rearing their children just fine on their own. Law makers such as Senator Alan Cropsey, given the amount of thought, time, and taxpayer money that has gone into enacting laws that allow for punitive repercussions, have gone to great lengths to insinuate that parents have indeed failed their children by allowing them to do as little as glimpse at the packaging in which violent video games are sold. Is it that those parents are not doing their part, or that the ERSB has failed to properly warn parents about products which are appropriate for their children? Douglas Lowenstein provides some insight into this when he issued the following statement:

"We reject any suggestion that parents cannot trust ESRB ratings. In fact, a scientific national survey by the highly regarded Peter D. Hart Research shows parents themselves agree with the ESRB ratings 83% of the time. Further, even the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) usually agrees with the ESRB. In fact, for the 10 games recently highlighted and rated on its web site, the NIMF ratings almost always agree with the ESRB rating. In a pluralistic society, any rating system which gets it right 83% of the time is doing a pretty good job."

It is one thing for any journalist to dig through the mountains of facts, papers, statements, laws, publications, laws, and red tape in order to determine which side has the greener grass, who is right and who is wrong. The real meat of the story lies within the real life stories of the parents and their children, in both this day and age and before the laws of Michigan and Illinois. In this particular debate, I found it imperative to seek out real life, everyday people in order to give credence to the claim within another of Douglas Lowenstein and the ESA's statements:

"We also disagree with those who suggest that violent video games are harmful. The most objective science in the world from the U.S. Surgeon General, the State of Washington Health Department, and the Government of Australia, among many others, has not found that games cause actual aggression or real-life violence."

PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME?

While researching the intricacies of behavioral modification theory through excessive exposure to violent video games for the Grand Theft America - When Parents Stop Parenting article, I came across a wealth of information which provided insight to the possibility that children could be effected in a number of ways. One theory states that that cognitive perception of the morality of "right" and "wrong" could be distorted in the very core of our brains during adolescent and pre-adolescent development. Another theory stated that repetitive acts of simulated violent behavior could not be determined to be the primary motivator for a violent adulthood. There is little evidence to suggest viewing blindfolded bondage scenes, drug users weighing drugs on scales, scantily clad warrior women wielding swords, drive by shootings, hangings, electrocutions, and exploitation of the female gender have been found to be influential in rise of crime statistics.

I spoke to the youngest of two brothers raised in a household headed by parents who worked full time throughout the week and saw very little of their children on the weekends. On any given weekday or weekend, the lack of socialization with their parents could have been the result of them "running wild in the streets," as he so fondly recalled, or his own self-imposed solitary confinement within his room, delving deep into another world which existed in either books or video games. He read heavy science fiction as a child and moved into Stephen King's Pet Sematary at age nine, given to him by his mother. He played Dungeons and Dragons from age ten and his preference of video games was anything with a plethora of swords, destruction, explosions, violence, and destruction. The games and literature were either provided by the parents or known to them from their children having been exposed to them outside of the home and telling the parents at the dinner table. He told me his brother, for the most part, spent a great deal of time in nature, playing with friends, climbing trees, and catching lizards. The older brother's devotion to video games fell unto those of good old fashioned American sports condoned by millions of parents; football and boxing.

Though he could not tell me at which point it became apparent, there became a noticeable difference in the two as the years went by. The older brother became increasing violent and prone to criminal acts of destruction, theft and violence, dropped out of middle school, eventually serving several years in a state penitentiary for his crimes. The younger brother joined the military and went on to become a Chef, creating artful delights and serving people in order to see the smile on their faces. Both brothers are in their thirties now and while each still enjoys video games, the older brother has developed severe social anxieties, leaving his house only to work; the youngest is an avid MMORPG player and active in his community.

After hearing this story, I simply noted the proof that two different people growing up in the same household with two different preferences for after school and weekend activities can produce two entirely different outcomes in their lives. This, however, was simply not enough.

I endeavored to dig deeper, to see how the other side lived, to find a different perspective, one that had the potential to be affected by the laws taking root in our land. In order to do that, I spoke to a couple from Michigan with flair for individuality expressed though what some consider an "alternative" lifestyle: working mostly at home and home schooling their three children, ages 3-8. The father works within the gaming industry, the mother in education. By all accounts from speaking with the mother and father separately, their children are nothing short of exemplary. They are well spoken and well behaved, and yet, low and behold, are exposed to video games on nearly a daily basis, even violent video games such as Halo. The eight year old is allowed to play the video game with the father present, all the while being taught the difference between right and wrong, and always within limited play times. They are not exposed to sexually graphic games such as Grand Theft Auto's Hot Coffee mod. They enjoy an active social life with other children their age through sports, music, and dance lessons. These children seem destined to be model citizens, though this is no indication they will not become dangerous elements of society in their later years. Odds are stacked in their favor though as these parents are doing the one thing that all parents can do to avoid allowing the influence of the everyday world to scar the minds of their children: stay involved.

CAN THERE BE EXPLANATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?

Aside from reviewing the lives of real people who somehow managed their way through life before these laws, the primary issues that we as citizens should examine and question are those defined within the laws themselves. The following questions need to be answered before any of us can truly understand why our money was spent to further the crusade of select religiously motivated fat cats who deign to impose their concept of parental guidance and care upon us: Why are we holding the owners and employers of video game retailers under different laws than those that govern the movie industry? If the studies which the legislation used are based on video games, why are all devices which can be classified as "computers" held liable? Are we to charge every single retail outlet owner and employee in America with the duty of scouring for pornography and violent material in order to avoid paying increasingly excessive fines? Given that the average person who is likely to be selling one of these "obscene" games makes ten cents above the federal minimum wage, how are they to even pay the fine? Since the law really only prosecutes those who absolutely knowingly push the material to kids they have with full knowledge and verification that they are under age, who does this law actually pertain to? Does the existence of a few individuals among hundreds of millions warrant the need for us to spend money and time debating? Did the politicians who have either signed these laws or considering them forget about comic books, bugs bunny, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians (which actually happened by those who built this nation by carving a bloody trail through history)? Have we made absolute certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths? Are we to head down to every single corner drug store, mall shop, retail outlet, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and gas station in a mad witch hunt for deviant employees seeking to peddle their way into infamy using digital crack? Why didn't the politicians respond to our questions before they spent our money and put into effect a punitive law that clearly states they have decided that we are not able to protect our own children to the point of hunting down retail clerks for restitution? Where will the money go if any is ever indeed collected?

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT

The letters of the laws simply fail to define in no uncertain circumstances why they are being enacted, given that parents have the full right to give these games to their children if they so choose to do so. If that wasn't strange enough, it is perfectly legal for their seventeen year old siblings, who are by definition of the law in every single state in the U.S., minors themselves, to give the game to siblings with no penalty. The laws do not provide for the ability to apply forensic culpability to any single, supposed offender of a law that, when examined closely, serves to do little more than create resume filler for the politicians. Since the inception of the laws that govern the United States, we have to enact a law that can protect our children from the outside world if we fail to take an active part in their development, their daily activities, and quite simply, their lives. Frankly, I haven't found many citizens of this country who believe it takes a half naked, scale toting, blind folded, sword wielding matriarch of judgement empowered with the right to capital punishment to tell us that now.

Sources:
1. "Disseminate" means to sell, lend, give, exhibit, show, or allow to examine or to offer or agree to do the same. [from Michigan SB-0416] 2. ESA Press release http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/09/video_game_indu_2.php