Techdirt. Stories filed under "violence"

VP Joe Biden Believes There's 'No Legal Reason' The Government Can't Slap A Sin Tax On 'Violent Media'

Tim Cushing — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:53:00 PDT

I'm not sure where vice president Joe Biden is getting his information, but he seems rather confident that a tax can be levied against "violent media." He may want to check with the Supreme Court, which has ruled against regulating violent video games and found taxing certain varieties of speech differently to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Possibly Biden just got carried away with the jovial spirit of censorship pervading the post-Sandy Hook political climate. Or maybe he was just in an overly-agreeable mood and started making affirmative statements without considering what he was saying.

Or maybe he was just "playing to the crowd," which was entirely comprised of reps for various religious/community groups.

Those present for the Monday evening meeting included Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and Barrett Duke, the vice president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm.

The meeting also included Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, and Melissa Rogers, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, according to people who attended.

This is not to say that all members (or even all representatives) of religious communities are censorious or prone to pushing their subjective morality on others. There are several exceptions. Franklin Graham, however, isn't one of the exceptions.

Graham, two people in the meeting said, told Biden the government should consider taxing media companies that broadcast violent images and produce violent video games.

He floated the idea that media and entertainment that portray violence should be subject to a special tax, with the proceeds going to help victims and their families," said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, the executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly.

Let's stop here for a moment and take a look at this proposal, possibly in the way that might befit a nation's Vice President.

First off, the idea is bad and Graham should feel bad. As was mentioned above, applying additional tax to certain forms of speech is a clear violation of free speech rights. The government would be applying this tax to whatever it arbitrarily deemed "violent" enough to qualify for the "sin tax." (This is really what this amounts to -- a tax on certain speech and, indirectly, certain consumer behavior.)

Secondly, the direct flow of tax revenue from "violent media" to "victims and their families" makes an implicit connection between the two principals. This links the two in the government's eyes and in the public's eyes. This also handily allows the government to dodge the fact that there is very little, if any, explicit connection between "violent media" and violence. In essence, this presumes guilt on violent media creators and punishes them for exceeding some arbitrarily acceptable "violence" threshold.

Then there's perhaps the most troubling aspect: who decides what amount of violence is non-taxable and where does that line get crossed? If it's a PG-13 film, does it go untaxed? Does any M-rated game immediately have the tax applied? Will game developers and filmmakers explore other paths, like explicit sexuality, simply because violence gets taxed and sex doesn't? Or will they, more likely, adapt to the new chilling effect and produce stunted, sanitized output?

There are other questions to consider as well. With the consumers footing the bill for violent movies and games, will this price hike affect purchases by attaching some sort of stigma to the products themselves? Would the government label these items with something like: "2% of this purchase goes to victims of violence," thus making consumers feel complicit in violent criminal activity simply by purchasing the media?

[Bonus: will the MPAA be involved? It is one of Biden's buddies and its rating system is built on one of the most bizarrely abitrary set of 'standards' in the entertainment industry.]

These are just a few aspects that should be considered before anyone even brings the subject up, much less offers Vice Presidential-backing for the idea. But Biden seems almost charmingly naive in his response:

Biden told Graham that there was “no restriction on the ability to do that, there’s no legal reason why they couldn’t” tax violent images, Clark added.

I'm guessing at this point someone has gotten word to Biden that there's actually at least one legal reason the government can't tax "violent images," because there has been no further word from either proponent of this terrible idea.

Graham’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment. Biden’s office also did not respond to requests to comment about the meeting.

Maybe Biden felt this conversation would never leave the room and therefore felt comfortable making ridiculous claims. He certainly appears to have tried to chill a little free speech himself.

Five people who attended the 2½-hour meeting told POLITICO that Biden made a specific plea to those present to keep his words off the record from reporters.

“He basically just said in general that these stakeholder meetings that if you put words into the vice president’s mouth it sometimes comes out wrong and gets misquoted,” said Shantha Alonso, the director of the poverty program at the National Council of Churches.

Well, that's a nice out to have. I guess we'll see if the "I was misquoted/comment was off the record" excuse gets run up the flagpole sometime soon. If it doesn't, we might be safe in assuming that, no matter what conclusions the CDC reaches in its study of violence and violent media, Biden and like-minded supporters will be moving forward with their reinterpretations of the First Amendment.

(h/t to Techdirt reader Colin for sending this our way. Not sure which Colin it is as multiple Colins come up in the search, but he knows who he is and can certainly take credit for the tip in the comment section.)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NJ Assemblyman Sean Kean Doubles Down On Bad Video Game Legislation

Tim Cushing — Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:59:22 PDT

To all you politicians out there willingly riding the coattails of a massacre into the Big Book of Bad Legislation: Just. Stop. There's too many of you out there right now using your downtime to Pin the Tail on the Scapegoat with poorly conceived bills that aim to clean up a video game market that, quite frankly, is doing a great job regulating itself.

But if you're someone like Sen. Charles Grassley, Rep. Jim Matheson, CT State Sen. Toni Harp or Rep. Debralee Hovey, something needs to be done about this nonexistent problem, and it needs to be done now. Lots of "something" has already been proposed and, fortunately, most of that "something" will be discarded before it ever becomes law, thanks to the Constitution.

However, if you're someone like NJ Assemblyman Sean T. Kean, you're not going to stop at one "something." No, if you're an inspired go-getter like Kean, you're going to introduce two diametrically opposed video game-related bills, hurl them into the legislative chambers and shout: "Now kiss!"

Here's "something" No. 1:

The first proposal prohibits the sale of any video game with an ESRB rating of “mature” or “adults only” to a person under the age of 18. Violating this law would carry a fine of up to $10,000 for a first offense and up to $20,000 for each subsequent offense. In addition, the Attorney General would be given the legal authority to issue cease and desist orders against the retailer and award punitive damages to the minor.

Kean is obviously unaware that the video game industry's entirely voluntary ratings system has managed to turn away 87% of underage purchasers. And this is happening without threats, hefty fines or the heavy hand of government intervention. But, as we all have learned over the years, the government simply cannot believe that good things happen without its interference. Politicians' jobs rely on this misconception. And that's how we end up with ~~suggestions~~ legislation like this, one that claims to be "for the children," but is really just the government hanging around outside game retailers with its hand out.

Judging by the impressive size of the fines (and the bizarre award of punitive damages to the minor -- what? getting the game isn't reward enough?), Kean is very serious about keeping "violent, sexually explicit" video games out of the hands (and eyes) of children -- so serious, in fact, that he has introduced another bill, which oddly enough, finds a way to put these M-rated games right back in these kids' hands (and eyes).

Under the second bill, minors would be permitted to purchase video games containing mature and adult content only if their parent or guardian is present during the purchase and gives their consent verbally or in writing at the time of the sale. Penalties for any violations are the same as with the first bill.

Good news, kids! Know someone over the age of 17? Then you too can own any number of "violent, sexually explicit" titles simply by declaring a random 17+ person your "guardian!" It's called a "two-party sale" and it's no different than hitting up the nearest 21-year-old still wearing his high school letter jacket and asking him (or her -- but it's always a him) to pick you up something to drink from the local liquor jobber. More seriously, why is this even needed? Parents have always had the option to purchase M-rated titles for their kids. This just throws additional pressure on the retailers who now have to make a judgement call as to the legitimacy of the adult accompanying the underaged purchaser. Before Kean's meddling, all a retailer had to do was refuse the sale. If this bill makes it through, retailers will be faced with the dubious pleasure of selling M-rated games to minors simply because someone over the age of 17 said it was OK -- and hefty fines if they screw up.

Here's Kean rationalizing these two bills.

“Just as it’s unlawful for minors to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, because it’s detrimental to their well being, the same can be said of adult video games, most of which contain extremely inappropriate content for a young viewer’s eyes and ears,” said Kean. “These two pieces of legislation are intended to protect children.”

While I can appreciate the tiny bit of deference shown towards parents who may feel their children can handle Call of Duty (or just don't care), I'm of the opinion that Kean's much more fond of the first bill than the second. The first is a deterrent with a government-rewarding fine attached that plays right into his "video games hurt children" mindset. The second is lip service towards individual responsibility. If Kean truly cares about individual responsibility, he'd shut up and get out of the way and let a system that is working extremely well continue unimpeded by unnecessary government interference.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Newspaper Publisher Disturbed By His Own Reaction To Walking Dead; Thinks Censorship Might Be The Answer

Tim Cushing — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:59:13 PDT

It's a very strange situation when a beneficiary of free speech call for limits on free speech, but that's exactly what happened recently in an editorial written by the publisher of a San Francisco community newspaper.

Stephen J. Moss, publisher of The Potrero View, found himself enjoying The Walking Dead a little bit too much. And that scared him. (via Reason)

I got drawn into watching AMC's "The Walking Dead," a ghastly television program that revolves around a zombie apocalypse. The show is so full of stomach-twisting mutilations — bloody decapitations, disembowelments, and amputations — that while viewing it I had to set aside my usual habit of TV snacking. Once the season ended I ordered the compilation of comic books on which is was based — almost five inches of death pornography — and topped that off with a 330 page prequel-like novel. Over the course of a few weeks, I became a reading zombie, gorging on dark depictions of depravity, torture, and killings.

This doesn't sound all that unusual. People become fans of various cultural offerings all the time, and often immerse themselves in everything they can find related to it. But Moss feels it effected him negatively, something he clearly wasn't expecting.

I can't easily explain why I was attracted to this gloomy entertainment. But I do know that the gory consumption binge impacted me emotionally. Like the fictional characters I was following on pages and screens, I became more fearful, distrustful, and morose.

Well, the simple explanation would be that the subject matter itself is gory, gloomy and morose. Like anything else, entertainment should probably be enjoyed in moderation. But sometimes you just can't help yourself and you binge. And, like any other type of binging, it may be followed by regret. So far, still no problem... unless you're Stephen J. Moss and you feel someone else may find themselves walking a mile in your fearful, distrustful and morose shoes.

Occasionally viewing or reading a brutal or sexual scene seems largely harmless, at least for grown-ups. But saturating ourselves with any set of images seems likely to mold our minds along particular channels.

This is undoubtedly true. What Moss experienced is hardly truly obsessive behavior. He went into a dive and pulled out. Others may not recognize the dive until it's too late, or may be immersing themselves in brutality/sexuality for the dive itself. But this isn't a problem inherent in the content consumed. It's a problem with the person consuming, one that can be exacerbated by this imagery, but not one that can be created by this imagery. There's a rational approach to this subject, but Moss goes in another direction, questioning whether (subjectively) disturbing artistic efforts should be allowed to roam free.

I'm recovering from all that now, but the episode got me wondering how what we watch or read impacts us. We've long attached warning labels to shows and movies that have violent or sexual scenes. We used to censor or ban provocative books. Recent attempts have been made to regulate rap music and video games, lest they incite youth to aggressive acts. Liberals, libertarians, and secular intellectuals have typically dismissed such efforts as liberty-stifling government over-reach. Up until now I'd have agreed with them. But my immersion into the zombie milieu has prompted me to reconsider.

Ah, yes. The "logical" solution would be censorship. If something affects Stephen J. Moss negatively, we should consider stifling, stunting or outright banning artistic efforts like these for the good of those less enlightened than Stephen J. Moss. If it's possible for even one person to be turned into a bloodthirsty (but morose) zombie killer by binge viewing, than it's high time we started blocking off anything someone might find disturbing, provocative or aggressive. Only once we've turned the nation's creative output into a bland pastiche that allows us to emulate society's teens and "experience neither highs nor lows," will we truly be able to save the future of America. Or something.

There's a lot of advice that counteracts this sort of thinking, most of it usually delivered to special interest groups with overactive imaginations. If you don't like it, shut it off. If you think your kids might be negatively affected by it, don't let them have access it. But don't go off on tangents based on a personal experience and project your subjective feelings all over the rest of society.

Free speech doesn't stop when you, as an individual (or even as an overly-concerned special interest group), feel your morality or sensibilities are being trampled on. Toughen up. Move on. Express your concern but realize that a call for censorship isn't the answer. As Neil Gaiman stated, defending speech you don't like is at least as important (if not more) as defending the stuff you do approve of.

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

You'd think someone running a community paper might realize how problematic a call for censorship of unpleasant speech might be. Or at least see how calling for censorship of other media forms might make them look a tad hypocritical. But this sort of clear thinking is often pushed aside by disturbing personal experiences, resulting in regrettable calls for action. (See also: nearly every piece of legislation crafted in the wake of a tragedy.) Moss' editorial isn't the most dismaying call for censorship I've seen, but his position and where it appears makes it notable. He should know better.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Poll: US Adults Think Video Games Lead To Violence But Can't Be Bothered To Understand ESRB Ratings

Timothy Geigner — Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:54:30 PST

It just keeps coming. More and more news items are hitting my eyeballs and ears about violence and video games. We recently discussed the problem with polling adults over this issue, where a giant age-rift still exists amongst gaming habits and that rift appeared to be tossed out for the purposes of the poll in question. Polls like that might be laughable at first, but when you begin to see misplaced legislation introduced by politicians kowtowing to the results, we've got a problem. But let's take it one possibly controversial step further and ask an important question regarding these polls: do Americans generally have any credibility on the question at all?

Polls like this recent Harris poll, where over half of American adults link violence and video games, make me question whether that is the case. The problem I have isn't that specific result. If half of Americans think there's a link, that's their right. I can disagree with it, but I won't quibble with their right to believe. No, my problem is the results of the follow up questions regarding the ESRB rating system.

Two thirds of US adults said they used the ESRB system to help them decide which games were suitable for their children, although only 14 percent claimed to fully understand what the guidelines meant. 18 percent of adult said they mostly, but not completely understood the ESRB ratings system.

To highlight the absurdity of the respondents, one needs only place all this in a single sentence. Over half of adults believe violence and video games are linked, two thirds of them use an ESRB system, which less than 80% even claim to mostly understand, to decide which games to buy for their children. This isn't to say that the ESRB rating convention isn't without its problems, but come on. If half of adults think there's a link between children and violence, but can't be bothered to mostly understand the rating system (which isn't that complicated), then there's a disconnect somewhere. Either adults don't actually think the link exists, or else they don't really consider the link to be all that important.

Either way, it doesn't speak to the credibility of the American public on the issue, which is sad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

'Video Games Do Not Cause Violence,' According To Former FBI Profiler

Tim Cushing — Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:46:18 PST

The national discussion about links between video games and violence continues. Unfortunately, most of the loudest "discussion" seems to be taking the form of proposed legislation that takes the view that the connection is a foregone conclusion. There's a wealth of misinformation to draw from, especially if one wants to believe that video game violence leads to real life violence, and many of these pundits and politicians have already found all the "evidence" they need to justify their push towards video game regulation or flat out bans.

One of the voices sure to be ignored in this debate is one with actual experience with violent individuals. Former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole had this to say about the subject during a panel discussion hosted by CBS News.

"It's my experience that video games do not cause violence," O'Toole told CBS News. "However, it is one of the risk variables when we do a threat assessment for the risk to act out violently."

"It's important that I point out that as a threat assessment and as a former FBI profiler, we don't see these as the cause violence," she added. "We see them as sources of fueling ideation that's already there."

O'Toole's statement echoes what many others have noticed while researching video games and violence. Violent video games don't craft new killers. However, they may encourage pre-existing tendencies. The push to censor or punish violent video games in order to prevent violence ignores the source of the problem, opting instead for an easily-accessible scapegoat.

As another panelist pointed out, violence statistics simply do not track with the rise of the video game industry.

Texas A&M International University psychology professor Christopher Ferguson pointed out that youth violence had recently declined to the lowest level in 40 years at a time when video games had become more violent.

As Ferguson sees it, this backlash against video games is nothing more than another moral panic; a periodic societal reflux that has attempted to lay the blame for societal woes on various handy villains in the past, like rock music, pinball and Dungeons & Dragons (among others). Ferguson point out the "attention" paid to comic books in the 1950s, which Congress and psychiatrists blamed for everything from juvenile delinquency to homosexuality.

Tragedies often lead to instant reactions and moral panic as legislators and special interests alike seize on parts of culture they distrust or misunderstand. This leads to a lot of "working backwards," as we've seen in a number of bills that have been introduced post-Newtown.

"We're in a mode of worry about — or panicking about this type of media. We may do some putting the cart before the horse, and we may see some people sort of starting with a conclusion and trying to assemble data in a very selective way to try to support that conclusion."

Fortunately for gamers, the Supreme Court has already taken a firm stance against the government regulation of video games, viewing this as a violation of First Amendment rights. This, combined with studies that have failed to show any direct link between violence and video games, helps keep legislators from doing much more than making a lot of noise about the subject. But they'll still keep trying, at least until the next bit of blamable culture comes along.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sen. Charles Grassley: An Unregulated Video Game Market Is A Dangerous Thing

Tim Cushing — Fri, 1 Feb 2013 12:48:44 PST

It looks as if politicians just aren't going to let video games continue to operate without regulatory oversight. We've already seen Rep. Jim Matheson's bill, which would basically turn a voluntary system (the ESRB) into a mandatory one with fines handed out for violations. It's a cynically redundant piece of legislation which would score Matheson a cheap political win, if it only had a chance in hell of passing. (The bill is even more redundant than that -- Matheson had this same bright idea twice before, in 2006 and 2008.)

Now, at the current Judiciary Committee hearings on "gun violence," Sen. Charles Grassley has suggested that current rating system just simply isn't good enough.

"There are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing of innocent people — games that despite attempts at industry self-regulation find their way into the hands of children," Grassley said at a Judiciary Committee hearing called to examine the causes of gun violence in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month.

Really? Everyone's current scapegoat, Celebrate Mass Killing: Modern Warfare [Current Iteration] and its spinoff, Celebrate Mass Killing: Black Ops, tend to celebrate the killing of people trying to kill you. And only if by "celebrate" you mean, "advance the storyline," and if by "advance the storyline," you mean "reach arbitrary hotspot that prevents enemy re-spawning and allows your more capable squadmates to turn a doorknob or something in order to continue celebrating mass killings."

But more seriously, despite the attempts of the government to regulate tobacco and alcohol sales, these items still find their ways into the hands (and mouths) of underage persons. And despite the government's best efforts to keep porn out of the eyes and hands of youngsters, many, many teens have seen a thing or two and attempted even more. No system is perfect but I'm willing to put the stats of the purely voluntary ESRB (and the retailers involved) up against the stats of any government regulated, sin-tax-paying item.

As for actual dangerous items currently regulated by federal and state governments, here's where they line up. Cigarette sales to minors are at 8.5%, falling from 40% in 1997 (2011 statistics). If there's a national percentage on alcohol sales, it's very well hidden. Here's some information from various locales on underage sales compliance rates. Blount County, TN - 9.7%, Escambia County, FL - 5.8%, Fort Wayne, IN - 4.3% (liquor stores)/8.8% (bars and restaurants), Washington, D.C. - 9.5%, Salem, NH - 2.9%, Boulder, CO - 13%. So, overall, roughly in line with cigarette sales, if not possibly lower.

Both percentages are admirably low, but compare those percentages to what the ESRB has achieved without the threat of arrest or loss of a retail license.

According to stats released by the FTC (h/t to commenter DCX2 for tracking this down), underage teenage shoppers were only able to obtain M-rated video games 13% of the time, as compared to 38% for R-rated DVDs, 33% for R-rated movie tickets and 64% for music with a Parental Advisory sticker.

Grassley seems to feel that putting the government in charge of enforcement would keep fewer M-rated games from "finding their way into the hands of children." Perhaps he should first take a look at how effective existing regulation is at keeping cigarettes and alcohol out of minors' hands. According to the CDC, 39% of high school students had consumed alcohol in the last 30 days. Not only that, but underage consumption (people aged 12-20) represents 11% of the total amount of alcohol consumed yearly in the US. As for cigarettes, the number is only 19.5% of high school students.

So, even a well-regulated market fails to prevent these items from being used/consumed by minors. Regulating the video game market will result in much of the same. Deciding it's now a crime to sell a minor an M-rated video game won't prevent a family member or friend from purchasing the latest "celebration of mass killing" for someone under the age of 18. Most people are going to feel that handing off Call of Duty to a 15-year-old weighs easier on their conscience than handing them a six-pack of beer, a pack of smokes or a gun.

But here's the key issue: the government can safely regulate tobacco and alcohol sales without fear of trampling on the First Amendment. Not so with games, although Grassley seems willing to put on his boots and start trampling.

Grassley pointed to evidence that a mass killer in Norway had played the popular "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" game and had referred to the game as part of his "training simulation."

"Where is the artistic value in shooting innocent civilians?" Grassley asked.

Oh, I see. We'll know what art is when Grassley points it out. Once again, Call of Duty is labeled an "innocent civilian shooter," somehow missing the point of the game completely. Sure, one could argue that Grand Theft Auto is an "innocent civilian shooter," but just because you can do it, doesn't make it the overall point of the game. You don't advance the story by shooting innocent people. It's always an option, but it's never required. (Personal note: I'm fairly sure I've run over way more civilians than I've actually shot, but I rarely get the urge to drive up and down the sidewalk at 60 mph when I'm behind the wheel...)

Once you have a politician asking for regulation and questioning artistic value in the same breath, you've got a problem on your hands. The Supreme Court has already determined that government regulation of video game content is a violation of the First Amendment, but recent events have seemingly made it "OK" to push this dubious agenda again. The president has authorized a study into violent media (including video games), but it looks as if these legislators don't have any interest in collection actual evidence before making their move.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Two More Politicians Claim Video Games Are The Real 'Problem'

Tim Cushing — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:50:40 PST

It's only been slightly over a week since the administration announced its plan to have the Center for Disease Control conduct a study on the link between video games and so-called "gun violence" and it's already looking as though the study won't be necessary. This isn't because anyone has taken a look at the evidence compiled already and decided that another look will likely be more of the same. Rather, it's looking like a thorough study would be ruled extraneous because many politicians have already decided the link between violence and video games is an unarguable fact.

Just last week, Connecticut senator Chris Murphy gave a speech in support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's new gun control bill in which he dropped this somewhat mystifying statement:

"I think there’s a question as to whether he would have driven in his mother’s car in the first place if he didn’t have access to a weapon that he saw in video games that gave him a false sense of courage about what he could do that day."

Beyond the confusing wording is a statement that Murphy inelegantly tries to frame as a "question:" Video games gave Lanza "the courage" to kill small children. The clumsy wording is Murphy's attempt to tie in the legislation he's supporting with his preconceived notion of the power violent video games supposedly have. Note the painful stretch that occurs in this phrase: "if he didn't have access to a weapon that he saw in a video game that gave him a false sense of courage." These stated-as-fact thats are heavily reliant on a leading if, turning the whole sentence into a triumph of suggestive conjecture.

Taking it apart further, you get this phrase: "if he didn't have access to a weapon he saw in a video game." That's the truly amazing section of the sentence. Murphy wants to ban "assault rifles" because they appear in video games? I seriously doubt that. He wants to ban them because he thinks the ban will prevent further violence. He very badly needs a second scapegoat because he knows his first scapegoat (assault rifles) might prove immune to his efforts. So, we get this tortured bit of logic that most certainly makes sense to Murphy, but falls apart under the slightest bit of examination.

Should the next step be to ban any weapons that appear in video games? Or should we put the cart before the horse (or perhaps behind the horse again?) and ban violent video games to prevent future would-be killers from somehow drawing the courage to pick up a matching, real-life weapon? Which should go first: the "access" or the video game? I think Murphy wants both, but since this is Feinstein's party, he has to settle for grafting on his gaming views with all the grace of an inept surgeon reattaching someone's severed limb... to someone else's chest.

Then there's Sen. Lamar Alexander. Rather than answer a direct question about gun control, he sidesteps it with an attack on video games:

Chuck Todd: "Can you envision a way of supporting the universal background checks bill?"

Lamar Alexander: "Chuck, I'm going to wait and see on all these bills. You know, I think video games is a bigger problems than guns because video game affect people, but the First Amendment limits what we can do about video games. The Second Amendment of the Constitution limits what we can do about guns."

Alexander is correct about the what's protected by what amendment, but it's clear that he'd rather go after the First. It's nothing more than Alexander swapping out the topic he'd rather bury with one he'd rather push. Not a surprising move, but it's another politician who's already made up his mind on the link between crime and video games and who is going to advance this viewpoint whenever given the opportunity.

Politicians have long distrusted electronic entertainment, dating back to the 1940's, when New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia ordered the destruction of several hundred pinball games, claiming they were "tainted with criminality" and "robbing" schoolkids of lunch money. As video games have grown in popularity and ubiquity, the moral panics and political scapegoating have kept pace, blaming this form of entertainment for everything from delinquency to lower grades to childhood obesity to murder.

While Obama's call for a study of the link between "violent media" and "gun violence" was very definitely a product of the current political climate, it was far more reasoned than the arguments being advanced by these politicians. Their minds are already made up and any information uncovered by the CDC study that fails to agree with their preconceptions will be disputed, distorted and ultimately ignored in order to tackle an opponent they think they can handle. These two don't appear to be confident they can push stricter gun control laws without suffering political damage, so they've brought along their own personal punching bag. Murphy's is a Plan B, should Feinstein's bill fail to make it through. Alexander's is a dodge, a soft underbelly to attack, far away from the more politically dangerous territory of gun control, but close enough to seem relevant.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk

Tim Cushing — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:25:56 PST

As we've noted, recent events have pushed the discussion of video games (namely the violent ones) back to the forefront. Even the President has chimed in, authorizing the CDC to perform a study to determine if any link exists between violent media (including video games) and so-called "gun violence."

While most gamers (and indeed, most people who can put two and two together without adding a bunch of rhetoric into the equation) have come to the rather sensible conclusion that violent games do not create violent people, the floor is still open to debate, most likely for the next several years. The sheer number of violent video games sold has failed, over the course of many years, to be matched by a comparable escalation in violent crime. If you're a gamer, you've probably thrown this argument into the debate a number of times and wondered why more people, especially those who active work to censor violent games, haven't arrived at the same conclusion.

Well, if so, here's your answer, courtesy of California State Senator Leland Yee, whose last effort to censor video games was shut down by the US Supreme Court.

"Gamers have got to just quiet down," Yee, D-San Francisco, said in an interview Tuesday. "Gamers have no credibility in this argument. This is all about their lust for violence and the industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest."

You got that, gamers? No credibility. None. Beat it. If we want to talk about video games, like grown ups, we'll do it without you. We'll just talk to senators and the CDC and concerned parents' groups and the NRA. But we won't be talking to game developers. No way. And certainly not gamers, whose opinion amounts to nothing in a debate of this (periodic) importance.

You know who else won't be included in this conversation until absolutely necessary? The Supreme Court. Because if anyone's opinion is invalid, it's the highest court in the land.

Yee, a former child psychologist, believes the court set the standard too high for any study to firmly link the cause and effect of violence.

Yes. This court, which stated that any effects caused by violent video games were too small to be distinguished from effects produced by other media, needs to butt out. Fortunately for Yee, the Supreme Court rarely offers an opinion until asked directly, unlike the millions of gamers who spout off in every forum imaginable.

Yes, Yee is right about the industry being self-interested. It does have a lot at stake, especially if some sort of government regulation results from this renewed attention. Pleasing a government censor is a lot harder than pleasing an independent ratings group. One has a political motivation to save humanity (mostly "the children") from "violent media." The other has an interest in preserving its autonomy by doing its job properly and giving each game a rating that reflects the content. In other words, one is more willing to kill the end result of $30 million in production costs in order to score political victories while the other wants to make sure mature content doesn't end up with a family-friendly T slapped across the front of the case.

Elsewhere in the article, you can find thoughtful comments from the very people Yee feels should just shut up. Kris Graft, editor-in-chief of Gamasutra, feels the violent video game problem is one of perception.

"It's not all about shooting people in the head and guts everywhere, but that's what the public perception is, and probably rightfully so," said Kris Graft, editor-in-chief of the San Francisco-based site Gamasutra, which along with its print magazine sibling, Game Developer, covers the video game industry. "There is plenty of diversity in video games, but I don't think it's being highlighted enough."

So does Kate Edwards of IGDA:

"It's important to point out that some of the most popular video games in history are all titles such as 'Wii Sports,' 'The Sims,' 'Super Mario Brothers,' the Pokemon series and 'Tetris,' " said Kate Edwards, executive director of the trade group International Game Developers Association. "So while the games containing more violence get the attention, they're not a reflection of the game industry as a whole, just as a single genre of film, TV or literature doesn't represent that medium as a whole."

Edwards also welcomes the CDC's study, stating that it will add to the "large body" of existing studies that have failed to show a link between fake violence and real violence.

But Yee doesn't want to hear from these people, who are rightly concerned because they have an investment in this industry and who feel this added attention is doing harm to not only their careers, but also to the games they love.

The people who should be keeping their mouths shut, or at least, sitting in the back with their hands folded until called upon, are those who know nothing about video games beyond scare reels put together by like-minded individuals and anecdotal "evidence" cobbled together out of headlines like 'Adam Lanza played Call of Duty' and 'Hans Breivik said Call of Duty taught him how to use guns.' Without a broader overview of the history, the industry and the culture, they're operating with a damaged data set culled from all the worst humanity has to offer and linked together by a single, gossamer strand of self-identifying as "gamers," ignoring the millions of other self-identifying gamers who are indistinguishable from others who have never played a game in their lives, united by the much thicker linkage of never having committed a violent crime.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ralph Nader Makes First Serious Bid For 'Crazy Old Man' Position; Refers To Video Games As 'Electronic Child Molestors'

Tim Cushing — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:29:12 PST

Is it time to let the "how is a video game like a Catholic priest" jokes start flying? Show me on the cartridge where Mortal Kombat touched you? Remember that part in Grand Theft Auto IV when Niko Bellic shoved his hand down your/his pants? Now we know why all controllers have a vibrate function?

Inappropriate? Yes. Offensive? Of course. But no worse than Ralph Nader's bizarre statement suggesting video games molest children. Sure, the definition of "molest" could cover tinkering with their little minds, but Nader's mid-rant attack on video games suggests his mind is the one that needs some tinkering.

“We are in the peak of [violence in entertainment]. Television program violence? Unbelievable. Video game violence? Unprecedented,” Nader said. “I’m not saying he wants to censor this, I think he should sensitize people that they should protect their children family by family from these kinds of electronic child molesters.”

Well, that seems to be everyone's favorite topic these days when they're not decrying gun ownership in general. "Violent media." "Violent video games." Let's get on the grandstand, ride the bandwagon, and craft some unfortunate legislation! And by all means, let's hyperbolize the issue into irrelevance.

"Peak violence." That's a new one. Just a few years ago we were all concerned with "peak oil." Now it's culture-at-large, supposedly more violent than ever, but without the escalating crime statistics needed to bear out these claims. All it takes is a tragedy or two to obscure the decline in violent crime and fog up the memory of those who have made overwrought statements aimed at various forms of media before.

Here's Nader's post-Newtown editorial for Huffington Post:

Advertisements aimed at children are meant to tantalize and sell the latest toys, gadgets and video games -- many of which serve as electronic babysitters that feature violence and undermine parental authority.

That's a lot of blame to place on a few devices, Ralph.

The potential impact on the developing psyche of young children of heavy exposure to the violence and crass humor found in entertainment is disturbing.

"Potential." Keep using that word like it means something. Everything is "potential" until proven or disproven. So far, "disproven" is winning. And one man's (or child's) "crass humor" is another man's high art. To equate an exposure to crass humor to an exposure to violence is some spectacularly bad rhetoric. Carrying out this "potential impact" to its illogical extreme means that fart jokes breed as many killers as Eli Roth films do.

Here's Ralph Nader again, from 2011, in an open letter to NBA commissioner David Stern, asking him to reconsider playing games on Christmas because NO FAMILY EVER WATCHED A SPORTING EVENT TOGETHER.

I urge you to reconsider the Christmas day NBA overload in a spirit of decency, regard and recognition as to how this will disrupt family gatherings throughout the day with predictable arguments between children and parents about watching the games instead of spending quality time with siblings, parents, relatives and friends.

If anything, I'd think he'd be more concerned about the players being unable to spend time with their families on Christmas, rather than on the "predictable arguments" of one-TV households (or whatever it is he's alluding to). I appreciate Nader's "family first" stance on all of these fake issues, but seriously, it's like listening to someone rant that everything today is terrible because it's not 40 or 50 years ago.

Nader has done a lot of good in his role as consumer advocate, but he's taking a wrong turn down an avenue that leads past "irrelevance" and into "self parody." His slightly unhinged rant, which included referring to the inauguration ceremony as "political bullshit" (it kind of is) and calling out Obama for breaking several of his campaign promises (which he did), was made even more bizarre by his statement that all of this was "peripheral" to his real concern: the "molested" children.

If this sort of thing keeps up, by the time any conclusions are reached on violent media and its relationship to real-life violence, the American public (and perhaps even many of their representatives) will be so tired of hearing about it, they'll no longer care. If anyone's truly worried about "desensitizing" the American public, it should be those who feel the issue can only be taken seriously if it's surrounded by ridiculous conflation and tenuous correlation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Obama Tasks CDC With Study Of Video Games And 'Violent Media'

Tim Cushing — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 03:20:34 PST

In the middle of a much larger speech introducing his "Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions," Obama threw in a little something for the videogame crowd:

Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.

While it may seem like a shot across the bow of videogames to score some cheap political points, what Obama actually has in mind is a bit more subtle. (Make no mistake, though: this subject wouldn't have been broached if not for the Newtown shooting.)

Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Two things worth noting in this paragraph:

The "Presidential Memorandum" lifts a moratorium on this sort of research by the CDC, something that has been in place for over 15 years. Kyle Orland at Ars Technica explains:

[T]he federal Centers for Disease Control have been prohibited from funding studies that "advocate or promote gun control" since 1996, when Congress cut the $2.6 million the organization had been using to fund gun injury research through its Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Further moves since then have prevented the CDC from even receiving federal crime data for gun research, and prohibited the National Institute of Health from doing gun violence research as well.

And why was this research prohibited? Depending on who you ask, it's either because the NRA didn't like guns being tied to injuries and death (Orland calls it a "chilling effect" brought on by Arthur Kellerman's study) or the study itself was severely flawed and skewed to fit the pre-existing bias of the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which operated under the CDC's direction.

Secondly, the wording directs the CDC to focus on areas with the "greatest potential public health impact." The administration may namecheck current hot buttons like videogames and violent media, but as it's worded, the CDC has no instruction to start its work by assessing these areas. As Orland states, this one sentence is likely nothing more than a brief concession to the current political climate:

Making a brief mention of video game studies as a part of a $10 million funding request is a good way to pay lip service to these political concerns on both the left and the right without really making it a priority. If studying video game and media violence were actually a major focus of the president's gun control agenda, it would have a much more prominent place in both his remarks and his official funding requests. Instead, the real money the president is asking from Congress will go to more important things: $20 million for the National Violent Death Reporting System, $14 million for police and security training, $150 million for in-school mental health counselors, $30 million to develop school emergency management plans, and so on.

Overall, putting the CDC in charge is probably (in the parlance of government works) the "least worst" way to handle this. The CDC will have access to more mental health-related data than other existing entities, a factor that definitely needs to be considered. (But this factor also presents its own problems: it's entirely too easy to write off mass murderers as mentally defective. The idea of taking someone's life, much less multiple lives, is so repulsive to "normal" human beings that the kneejerk reaction is to blame it on mental illness. It's safe to say that normal people would never commit mass murder, but it's way too simplistic to assume that every perpetrator is mentally defective.) It should also have access to demographic and other environmental factors, which should give it a more rounded picture than the limited sample sizes and variables of smaller studies and surveys.

Another factor that makes the CDC a preferable choice is the fact that it's an existing agency. Turning this task over to a special committee would result in a room filled to capacity with appointees and their predispositions. (The argument can also be made that the CDC carries its own predispositions, but expecting a government directive, especially an executive order, to conjure up a completely impartial study is to show a level of faith the government simply doesn't deserve.)

Now, the downside.

Any conclusions the CDC comes to will be immediately suspect. No matter what it finds, the conclusions will be disputed. The presence or absence of a link between violent media and gun violence will only exacerbate the divide between both sides of the debate. To date, no link has been conclusively proven. This study's outcome will likely be more of the same. It's nearly impossible isolate people and "violent media" from the other factors that affect the equation. The CDC should be able to incorporate its existing knowledge in regards to risk factors, but the answers it comes up with will fail to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, it will change nothing, but it will have the power to inform government policy going forward and, depending on the political climate, it's likely that gossamer-thin correlation will be enough to justify legislation.

Then there's the tangled issue of gun control policy, something the CDC has waded into in the past. Again, any conclusions drawn will be contrasted against its history with the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and its biased approach to the study of gun violence. (Particularly troublesome is a 1987 CDC report, in which the director of the NCIPC thought enough evidence existed to "confiscate all firearms from the general population" in order to prevent 8,600 homicides a year.) The administration has done a disservice to both groups (video game fans, gun owners) by making this study inseparable from a larger gun control proposal.

The best case scenario, like so much in government, is that nothing happens. The studies are proposed, the climate shifts and, like so much before it, it's discarded in favor of What's Ailing the Nation Now. While it would be interesting to see the CDC perform an in-depth study (especially if the data collected is made available to the public), the chance of a negative outcome (in terms of misguided legislation, etc.) is way too high.

On the whole, though, it is refreshing to see videogames treated as part of the media, rather than a wholly distinct scapegoat capable of destroying society on its own. Unfortunately, even with its rather brief appearance in the administration's set of proposals, it appears the government still wants to control media (as opposed to "the media") and this single paragraph could help rationalize unconstitutional measures.

White House Gun Violence Reduction Executive (PDF)White House Gun Violence Reduction Executive (Text)

Gun Violence Fact Sheet (PDF)Gun Violence Fact Sheet (Text)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Kenyan Filmmaker Who's Planning To Distribute His Documentary Via 'Pirates' Posts First Hour Of New Film On Youtube

Tim Cushing — Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:02:00 PST

A couple months back we covered the story of Patrick Mureithi, a Kenyan filmmaker who was raising money for a documentary on post-election violence in his home country. He was asking for $5,000 to cover travel expenses and some related costs and was hoping that Kenya's thriving "piracy industry" would handle the distribution end of the business, spreading his message of hope throughout his homeland.

The good news is Murethi's Indiegogo campaign met its goal and he is back in Kenya setting up viewings of his documentary and shooting more footage to add to it. It's still in its "first draft" stage according to Murethi, but he sent a message our way informing us that he's uploaded the first hour of the still-unfinished documentary to Youtube.

@techdirt Here's the film. Please share it widely: youtube.com/watch?v=Ze6tG5…Peace, p
— Patrick Mureithi (@MureithiPatrick) January 6, 2013

He's also blogging about his experiences returning to Kenya (he currently lives in Missouri), including this "fun" little shakedown at the hands of customs at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport:

Custom's dude @ the airport: Hello? What do you have in those bags?
Me: Some clothes and my camera equipment.
Dude: What are you doing with this equipment?
Me: I'm working on a documentary about healing from trauma after post-election violence.
Dude: Are you a press-man?
Me: No.
Dude: Where is your filming permit?
Me: I don't have one
Dude: Then we have to keep your equipment until you get a permit
Me: I find it hard to leave this equipment here after all the sacrifice it took to get it
Dude: Go talk to that lady (presumably his superior)

- - -

Lady: What are you using this equipment for?
(I explain what I did to dude)
Lady: But this happened five years ago!
Me: Yes, but the trauma has not gone away, and will not go away with time
Lady: How will it go away then?
Me: Through education about trauma and teaching various ways that we can heal
Lady: This is a very controversial film. You need a permit, and you need to leave your equipment with us until you get one.
Me: Please, madam, this is not agreeable with me
Lady: Go see that man in that office

- - -

Man in office: Where is your permit?
(The Dance repeats itself. 45 minutes in total)
Man: We'll let you go with your equipment, but you have to pay 1% of the equipment's cost, non-refundable

I pay, and scurry off to meet my father who has been patiently waiting, sipping coffee through a straw.

Karibu Kenya.

Apparently only non-controversial films are allowed to roam permit-free, unless you're willing to pay a non-refundable "deposit" on equipment you own. A bit of a rough start to be sure, but more recent posts seem a bit more upbeat.

Hopefully, Murethi will keep us posted on any new developments, including the implementation of his scofflaw distribution system once the film is completed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments

Mike Masnick — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:54:15 PST

As predicted, one element of the NRA's "big announcement" today was to lash out and blame media, music and movies for violence. Most news stories are focusing on the wacky idea of putting armed guards in every school (and to do so in the next few weeks as well) and creating a database of the mentally ill, but the lashing out at video games and movies, despite no evidence that they actually lead to violence, seems equally ridiculous.

In some manner, it appears that the NRA's response is that the 2nd Amendment is more important than other amendments in the Constitution. Blaming music and movies is an attack on the 1st Amendment, which allows for freedom of expression, while turning our schools into police states, patrolled by armed guards, at least toes the line on the 4th Amendment. The database of mentally ill patients also raises significant privacy issues. No matter what you think of various gun control proposals, it seems rather ridiculous to take a strong Constitutional stand as the basis for your argument... only to make a complete mockery of other amendments.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yet More Evidence Shows No Link Between Video Games And Actual Violence

Mike Masnick — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:51:44 PST

Well, well, well. With the NRA planning to blame violent video games and movies, and eager grandstanding politicians, pundits and some members of an angry public ready to do the same, it seems like it might be useful to look at some actual data.

Senator Jay Rockefeller -- one of the grandstandingest grandstanders on this particular issue -- has already introduced a bill demanding that the National Academy of Sciences "study the impact of violent video games and other content on children." The speed with which this was introduced suggests that it was already sitting in a desk drawer, just waiting for a tragedy to exploit.

But, the thing is, we've got a ton of evidence already. The moral panic crew always claims that there are studies that support their argument that violent video games are bad, but that's not true. Every single study they cite tends to either have serious methodological problems, or to show something other than claimed (such as the fact that immediately after playing a violent video game, gamers may feel slightly more aggressive -- but with no evidence this lasts or leads to violence). A few years ago, a very thorough review of all of the research trying to connect video games to violence showed that there was no real evidence of any real world impact. Instead, what they found was that some studies used "poorly standardized and unreliable measure of aggression" to make their arguments, but that no study had shown any real world impact. Furthermore, in going through all the research, they concluded that "Overall, effects were negligible, and we conclude that media violence generally has little demonstrable effect on aggressive behavior."

Even the American Psychological Association, who had, in the past, warned about violent video games, recently walked back that warning, after it, too, reviewed a whole bunch of studies and found nothing to support the claims that violent video games lead to increased violence. The one possible exception was that for "a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems," video games might possibly exacerbate the condition. But, the problem there was more on the mental health side, rather than the video game side:

"Violent video games are like peanut butter," said Christopher J. Ferguson, of Texas A&M International University. "They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems."

He added that studies have revealed that violent games have not created a generation of problem youngsters.

"Recent research has shown that as video games have become more popular, children in the United States and Europe are having fewer behavior problems, are less violent and score better on standardized tests," Ferguson, a guest editor for the journal, explained.

That same study also showed that much of the research shows that video games can actually be quite useful to children.

Finally, the Washington Post recently published a Ten-country comparison of video game spending to gun-related murders. Let me know if you can spot the outlier. This, of course, is correlation data, and while correlation does not equal causation, a lack of correlation certainly suggests that there is no causal impact here. If anything, the chart suggests, pretty clearly, that there's an entirely different variable impacting the US's proclivity towards gun-related murders, and that video games have absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns

Mike Masnick — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:40:00 PST

There's been a fair amount of discussion about "gun control" in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre -- and whether or not you believe that gun control is important or that it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other (and I've seen both arguments over and over again in the past few days), one thing that a number of people have talked about is the gun lobby's silence in response to the tragedy. The NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups out there, has remained mostly quiet on the subject, even to the point of shutting down its Facebook feed (which was getting bombarded) and staying silent on Twitter. However, the organization started to speak up yesterday, putting out a message about how it, too, was horrified by the tragedy, and announcing an important press conference for Friday. According to Fox News, the point of the conference is to "push back" and apparently that means blaming videos games and movies:

Sources close to the issue had earlier alerted Fox News that the National Rifle Association -- which has remained silent since Newtown, chiefly to allow for a proper period for mourning -- would soon start to "push back" against the gun-control lobby.

"If we're going to have a conversation, then let's have a comprehensive conversation," said one industry source. "If we're going to talk about the Second Amendment, then let's also talk about the First Amendment, and Hollywood, and the video games that teach young kids how to shoot heads.

Of course, as we've been noting the past few days, this kind of thing may actually go over well with grandstanding politicians who have used the tragedy to push this line of action, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that such things have had any impact at all.

This is basically the NRA's "hey, look over there!" strategy.

And, whatever you think of the gun control issue, I can't see that working out well for the NRA in the long run. It might get the attention of a few grandstanding politicians, but these days, a very large percentage of the population plays video games. It's not an issue that's confined to a small group of teenaged boys any more. And pissing off the large and growing group of gamers with bogus claims about how they're being brainwashed to murder people isn't going to win many fans.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy

Tim Cushing — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:48:00 PST

As Mike covered earlier, politicians are particularly opportunistic beasts, willing to turn any tragedy into a soapbox and a chance to push through pet legislation. Even if the politicians aren't particularly wed to gun control or censorship, they're more than willing to get on the bandwagon if it will net them a little facetime with the press or the appearance of "doing something."

The latest addition to the list of opportunists is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who states that something needs to be done about violent video games and movies, whether or not they had anything to do with last week's tragedy.

“We also need to look at the violence our kids see every day starting at a young age. By the time children reach 18 years old, they have seen tens of thousands of violent images – on television, the internet, or video games. As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children’s wellbeing. While we don’t know if such images impacted the killer in Newtown, the issue of violent content is serious and must be addressed.

Rockefeller doesn't specify any particular research, but then, this is a press release, not an editorial. And despite admitting that everything he's worried about may not have affected the Newtown killer, something must still be done because... well, because this is Rockefeller's pet issue.

Back in 2007, Rockefeller led a push to grant the FCC "explicit authority" over violent and indecent programming, including the assessment of heftier fines for violators. Back then, he used his "tens of thousands of violent images" scare quote as well, and mentioned a wealth of research that backed up his assertions... but failed to name a single study in his press release.

Having failed with this initial push, Rockefeller saddled up the hobby horse again in 2009, revisiting the Children's Television Act. He claimed this was just a fact-finding mission and not another attempt to push the FCC to clean up television to his exacting specifications. One is almost tempted to believe him, right up until he details his frustration with the reactions of his fellow senators to his FCC-related effort.

He said he had not been deterred by the reactions of his fellow Senators to a hearing last year at which he featured a clip reel of violent programming. He said he was shot down, mostly by members of his own party, because of concerns over the First Amendment. "There was an automatic mindset that because the First Amendment exists, you cannot even be talking about this so don't waste my time. I was furious, and I was undeterred."

As everyone knows, the First Amendment only protects speech you 100% approve of.* How dare these so-called Senators express concerns about turning the FCC into a tool of censorship! It's refreshing that Rockefeller remains "undeterred" in his efforts to sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of "protecting the children."

*100% not a fact.

He's a few years behind his biannual schedule, but Rockefeller is riding high in the hobby horse saddle yet again, thanks to America's rather more frequent delivery of exploitable tragedies. He may have made a few points on gun control and mental health in this release, but he undoes any forward momentum by opportunistically exhuming his "violent media" platform.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-Pornography Guy Politicizes 10 Year Old Girl's Murder

Timothy Geigner — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:41:43 PDT

The adult film industry gets mentioned on Techdirt frequently because, as everyone knows, "the internet is for porn." Typically, we get to write fun little stories about silly journalists believing horse-poop statistics on home pornography. Or else an ice cream company is suing an adult film studio over a porno-parody of their silly flavors. Those stories are good for a laugh because, let's be honest, there's something inherently funny about movies of people bumping uglies coupled with the far less fleshy world of news and IP law. What isn't laugh-worthy is when a tragedy occurs, such as the senseless slaying of a 10 year old girl, and the result is a bunch of grand-standing jackwagons lining up to use her death to promote their own false agenda.

Yet that's what is happening with the case of Jessica Ridgeway's murder, now that the accused killer is a young man who reportedly is addicted to pornography. Let's highlight one of the aforementioned grand-standing jackwagons, just so we can identify who is saying what before I get to the elephant-in-the-room-sized problem with his nonsense. Meet the ironically-named Patrick Trueman.

“News that the boy accused of killing Jessica Ridgeway is addicted to pornography will come as no surprise to law enforcement agents with experience in sexual crimes,” says Patrick A. Trueman, president of Morality in Media and former chief of the U. S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in Washington, D.C.

“Pornography consumption causes addiction and leads many, children included, to sexual violence. It’s high time the U.S. government took the issue of pornography seriously again and began vigorously prosecuting the major producers and distributors of hardcore pornography.”

Got that? Pornography, and the prevelance of it, is so directly to blame for murders like Jessica Ridgeway's that our government should be prosecuting producers. Note the lack of nuance in the statement, by the way. All pornography is lumped into this charge. Not child porn. Not porn that in any way depicts violence. Not fantasy rape porn. All porn. So says Patrick Trueman, who, as the president of Morality In Media, must have some evidence for his claims, right? Then we get to his next quote:

“We do not know and may never know exactly how much influence pornography played in these two crimes, but sexual crimes by minors do not happen in a vacuum; porn is almost always a significant contributing factor,” Trueman said.

Well, if that isn't the dream stance of a prosecutor, I don't know what is. He's essentially saying he doesn't have any clue what role pornography plays between the two crimes, but surely it must play some role (presumably because he finds coitus icky), so prosecute all the pornographers. Outstanding. Yet his silliness continues.

“When the U.S. Department of Justice gave up enforcing federal pornography laws, it gave up on our children. Now addiction, sexual experimentation mirroring scenes from violent porn videos, as well as sexual violence are all too common among children. Child-on-child sexual crimes, once unheard of, are also on the rise. The porn industry is directly responsible for these trends and the harm to our nation’s children. But law enforcement officials, such as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who refuse to enforce anti-pornography laws, designed to protect children and society from sexual predators, bear much responsibility also,” he continued.

Yes, you read that correctly. The other group responsible for Jessica Ridgeway's murder is the Justice Department, including Eric Holder.

Now, that massive problem I mentioned with Trueman's logic? Well, his entire premise lies somewhere on the spectrum between "pretty dubious" and "ultra-mega-wrong". The prevelance of the internet, on which pornography is so graciously widespread, has risen exponentially in everyone's lives since 1990. This includes its use amongst children, obviously. So, with the massive rise in access to pornography by adults and children, how are the statistics of sex-crimes correlating?

Well, for sex-crimes in general, they're dropping, and fairly significantly so. In the last 20 or so years, the United States has seen a 15% drop in forcible rape rates. That's despite the growth of internet use, and likewise the growth in viewing pornography, and also despite a culture change in which reporting rape and sex crimes is only becoming more acceptable (thankfully -- though society still has a long way to go in encouraging reporting of such cases). And, if you want to drill down to child-on-child sex crimes, which Trueman focuses on, the data there doesn't support his claims either. According to that USA Today article:

The latest juvenile crime data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that arrests of juvenile sex offenders declined by about 25% from 2000 through 2009. That would mesh with a decline in child sex abuse committed by adults, as well as a decline in the overall juvenile crime rate.
But data from New York City, Florida and elsewhere indicates that the prevalence of child-on-child sex hasn't dropped noticeably.

So, while there's less in the way of concrete super-damning data in the realm of child-on-child sex crimes, the general consensus is that its occurence is either dropping significantly, or not changing much. This doesn't seem to mesh with Trueman's warning klaxon about how pornography is turning all of our children into SVU suspects.

The conclusion is obvious, though no less anger-inducing. It would appear we do not have a child sex-crime epidemic on our hands. However, we apparently might have a grandstanding jackass making use of a high-profile tragedy for his own ends epidemic.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya

Timothy Geigner — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:58:00 PDT

Unless you have been living under a rock the past few days, you're likely aware of the violent protests in Egypt and Libya on American missions which have resulted in several deaths, including that of US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The apparent flashpoint for these protests was a movie trailer on YouTube for what is by all accounts a horribly offensive and insensitve film about Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. We've seen similar stories in the past over website content, but this incident takes things to a whole new level.

Today we learned that YouTube has taken the step of restricting access to the video in question in both Egypt and Libya. When asked about it, YouTube responded with the following statement.

"We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," YouTube said by e-mail. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere.

This video -- which is widely available on the Web -- is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries."

While I understand why YouTube is doing this, I think it's misguided for two reasons. First, stupid and hateful as the video in question reportedly is, blocking access (potentially seen as taking it down in Egypt and Libya) can be interpreted to mean that the fault for what's happening is in part with the video itself. It isn't. The guilt for this violence is not in some stupid video. It isn't even in the massive protests in the Muslim world against the video (though I'd probably suggest they learn about the Streisand Effect). The guilt for the violence and death belongs on the thugs and murderers who committed it. End of story. This is especially true when the company has acknowledged itself that the video does not violate YouTube's terms of service.

The EFF agrees.

It is easy to understand why YouTube might feel compelled to act in response to the rioting over this video, especially after three U.S. embassy employees were killed in the Libyan city of Benghazi, but the blame for the violence lies not with the video, but with the perpetrators. Once YouTube has made the decision to pro-actively censor its content, they start down a slippery slope that ends in YouTube Knows Best moral policing of every video on their site. It is disappointing to see YouTube turn its back on policies that have allowed it to become a such a strong platform for freedom of expression. We hope that this new-found enthusiasm for pro-active censorship is a temporary aberration rather than a sign of things to come.

The second reason is that YouTube's move is almost certainly equal parts too late and ineffectual. As the company's statement itself noted, this video is and already was all over the internet. Censoring the video now is a bit like covering your ears and eyes as your house burns around you. The problem of religious intolerance and violent reactions to it is going to exist whether you acknowledge it's there or not. Nobody is served by trying to pretend the hateful attitudes in the video don't exist. And it isn't like the protests have ceased now that YouTube has restricted access in those countries. The cat is already out of the bag. All you've done now is open the door to blocking videos based on people deciding to be offended with little to no effect on the violence at hand. So what was the point?

I'll be clear again: every description of the video in question suggests that it is cartoonishly crafted and inflammatory bigotry. But it doesn't violate YouTube's TOS, it is speech, and taking it down was a poor decision made in fear. That isn't the way I expect a company like YouTube to behave.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Made Him Do It: Two More Theories On The Aurora Shooter

Tim Cushing — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:26:07 PDT

As is the case with any inexplicable tragedy, a million pundits and armchair psychoanalysts have emerged to "explain" what would turn a person into someone who would enter a darkened theater and methodically open fire on a crowd. Tim Geigner ran down a few of these earlier, and so far the blame lies at the combined feet of opponents of bullying, opponents of Judeo-Christian lifestyles, Star Trek, video games, Occupy Wall Street, and the easy availability of weapons and ammo.

Two editorials have been added to the mix, pointing the finger at violent movies in general, and even more peculiarly, at Warner Brothers Studios itself. Michael Cieply's editorial for the New York Times never comes out and states explicitly that Warner Brothers is responsible for the Aurora shooter's actions, but its opening anecdote seems to think that such a connection should be made.

For decades Warner’s films have frequently put the studio in the middle of a perpetual and unresolved debate over violence in the cinema and in real life. That debate has been revived after the deadly shootings last Friday in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater at an opening night showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” from Warner.

While the box-office success of “Dark Knight” seems assured — the opening weekend produced $160 million in North American sales — Warner executives have decided to delay the planned Sept. 7 release of another film, “Gangster Squad,” according to a person who was briefed on the studio’s plans on Tuesday and spoke anonymously because the change has not been officially announced. The film is a hard-edged cinematic portrayal of the police war on mobsters in mid-20th-century Los Angeles.

Trailers for the movie, which showed gunmen firing into a movie theater, were pulled after the shooting last week. Executives have further debated whether to go so far as to reshoot portions of “Gangster Squad,” according to published reports. Warner executives declined through a spokeswoman to discuss their plan or the studio’s posture in general toward screen violence.

To go forward with “Gangster Squad” as is might trigger revulsion at scenes that seem to recall the movie-theater slaughter in Colorado. But to change it substantially or delay it for long (no new date has been set) might seem to acknowledge an otherwise debatable link between movie violence and real events, breathing life into a discussion that is perhaps more familiar at Warner than at any of Hollywood’s major studios.

It's quite a stretch to contend that an unreleased movie somehow "acknowledges" the "link" between movie violence and actual violence. Unless James Holmes was part of the "Gangster Squad" crew, this is simply unfortunate timing, much like the terrorism scenes that caused several films to be delayed following the 9/11 attacks.

Branching out from this dubious start, Cieply retells the story of Warner Brothers' fascination with violent movies, stopping to discuss copycat rapists/killers "inspired" by "A Clockwork Orange," "Natural Born Killers" spawning imitation acts of violence and a few others before winding up at "The Matrix," tenuously tied to defendants trying to cop an insanity plea by claiming they were trying to "escape from the matrix."

A few "copycat killers" may emerge for the Aurora shooting or from the movies themselves, an unpreventable byproduct of evil people with limited imagination. In many cases, the copycat aspect is simply a convenient scapegoat for the killers to use themselves: "The devil made me do it."

After this history lesson, Cieply just lets himself out the back door without drawing any real conclusion:

Three decades earlier, however, a Newsweek writer, in a review that derided the “lethal ugliness” of “Dirty Harry,” also registered the futility of worrying about the bad effects of a movie. Good-hearted pictures, the magazine reasoned, rarely seemed to do much good. “There is little chance that this right-wing fantasy will change things where decades of humanist films have failed,” the review said.

True enough. If positive, non-violent films aren't resulting in copycat altruism, it's just as likely that even the most dark-hearted film won't have much of an impact.

Peter Bogdanovich, director of "The Last Picture Show" and "Paper Moon," has an op-ed of sorts as well over at The Hollywood Reporter laying the blame for the Aurora shooting at the feet of violent films. Bogdanovich probably has a more relevant take on the shootings considering his film, "Targets," ends with a sniper attack at a drive-in, as well as having lived through a very violent experience when Dorothy Stratten was killed by her estranged husband.

Unfortunately, this piece (credited with "As told to Gregg Kilday) isn't it. He sounds completely dismayed and genuinely angered by the shooting, but emotional reactions rarely make for the best logical arguments.

Violence on the screen has increased tenfold. It's almost pornographic. In fact, it is pornographic. Video games are violent, too. It's all out of control. I can see where it would drive somebody crazy.

I'm in the minority, but I don't like comic book movies. They're not my cup of tea. What happened to pictures like How Green Was My Valley or even From Here to Eternity? They're not making those kind of movies anymore. They are either making tentpole pictures based on comic books or specialty pictures that you pray someone will go see.

The fact that these tentpole movies are all violent comic book movies doesn't speak well for our society.

Today, there' a general numbing of the audience. There's too much murder and killing. You make people insensitive by showing it all the time. The body count in pictures is huge. It numbs the audience into thinking it's not so terrible. Back in the '70s, I asked Orson Welles what he thought was happening to pictures, and he said, "We're brutalizing the audience. We're going to end up like the Roman circus, live at the Coliseum." The respect for human life seems to be eroding.

Orson Welles make a good, if inadvertent point: compared to the actual violence that was used for entertainment in the past, today's movie violence is a very pale imitation. And the level of violence in major motion pictures is nothing compared to the violence displayed in theaters elsewhere in the world. If movie violence were truly driving people to this sort of behavior, one would expect Japan and Korea to be epicenters of mass killing. What Cieply lists (and Bogdanovich echoes) is truly kids' stuff compared to the imagery conjured up by Takashi Miike and Park Chan-Wook.

The problem with all of these theories is that the variables are common to the entirety of the US population. If these are all creating killers, we should be suffering from an epidemic of violence rather than dealing with isolated tragedies. And the issue with violent movies is nothing new either. Concern about the level of violence and portrayal of villains and anti-heroes goes all the way to the Hays Code. Read this stipulation from the Code and see if you don't find that echoed by the implicit statements in Cieply's and Bodanovich's editorials:

Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron)

These editorials argue that homogenization or repression (or at least a return to the "good old days") is preferable to the current cinema's taste for violence in light of the Aurora shooting. The deplorable actions of a single individual somehow makes the case that the general public should be denied access to portrayals of violence, because "there but for the grace of God, go..." well, not these authors anyway, but certainly everyone else. Whether its movies, video games or music, the "answer" to violent tragedies is always the same: the public cannot be trusted with questionable material. This sort of punditry is the worst kind. It willingly throws personal responsibility out the window in favor of mass scale condescension.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Press Speculates Batman Shooter Must Have Played Video Games; They're Right: He Loved Guitar Hero

Timothy Geigner — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:10:10 PDT

I'm going to assume that most of us are by now aware of the tragedy that occurred late last week, when an Aurora, Colorado theatre showing the new Batman movie was allegedly shot up by a James Holmes for whatever reasons people like him have for this kind of depravity. I'll refrain from discussing any details about the shooting, since that's not really apropros for Techdirt. However, I did notice something that seemed worth pointing out.

First, Reason has been keeping a running list of all the things politicians and media pundits are blaming for the shooting (hat-tip to E. Zachary Knight for the link). For those of you keeping score at home, based on the aggregate blame-machine that that article has counted up, the shooting can so far be blamed on: The Tea Party, a lack of Christianity throughout the country, bullying, Star Trek (not kidding), or Occupy Wall Street. And, of course, video games.

The organization responsible for the salvo against gaming is CNN, via Pat Brown, who stated his stance simply:

"Teenage psychopaths get inspired by [video games] and want to make it real"

Interestingly, I was somewhat heartened (as much as one can be in a situation like this) that I had not seen such a rush to judgment against violent video games in this case, particularly considering that this whole tragedy occurred mere miles from Columbine, where violent video games were skewered over a decade ago. But maybe there is a good reason we aren't seeing violent games being blamed in this case: because suspect James Holmes apparently didn't play them. He is apparently known for playing video games, but not of the violent variety (via TMZ):

"one of James Holmes' classmates at the University of California at Riverside played Guitar Hero with the shooter all the time, and "for hours."

The male student is telling friends he is "shocked," never having had a clue that Holmes had a propensity for violence. It's an interesting side note, because people with violent tendencies often act them out in various ways, and video games are definitely an outlet."

The point that needs to be made is that we're likely not going to understand what motivated James Holmes to do what he did for a long time, if at all, and the rush for media members and political forces to judge a tragic situation through their own biased viewpoints rather than to simply wait for the facts to bear themselves out is dangerous.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sarkozy Seeks To Criminalize 'Habitually Visiting' Websites About Violence

Mike Masnick — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:01:45 PDT

Wizz points us to a speech that French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently gave in response to the death of the suspect in the Toulouse murders after the police shot him as he tried to escape, when they raided his apartment after a 32-hour standoff. As part of the speech, Sarkozy decided to use it as an opportunity to push for more anti-internet legislation, including a plan to criminalize visiting certain websites too often. Here's the video in French, with his comments coming around 2:20. Translating the key line, he says:

Anyone who habitually visits Internet sites that advocate terrorism or carrying calls for hate or violence will be punished under criminal law.

It appears that there is already a law in France that similarly makes it a criminal offense to "habitually" visit child porn sites, and this is a push to expand that same law to terrorism, hate and violence sites (original French). Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this. Obviously, accessing child porn is a strict liability kind of thing, where it's clearly illegal. Merely reading about terrorism, hate or violence is not.

Also, there's a question of how do you know if someone "habitually" visits such sites, raising fears that Sarkozy wants to implement a pretty broad deep packet inspection spying system to make this work. This has, quite reasonably, raised significant concerns among human rights/free speech activists (original French) about just what Sarkozy is actually planning. Others point out that such a law almost certainly wouldn't pass French constitutional scrutiny.

Either way, just the idea is quite a dangerous leap. Criminalizing the visiting of websites because they contain information? If the content itself is illegal, go after those who create the website. Going after people for reading it reaches towards the level of establishing thought police. It also seems to greatly overestimate (as many politicians do) the power of a simple website to convince people of certain things. We see the same thing in the US with Senator Lieberman's grandstanding against terrorist content, which he wants banned and blocked in the US as well. It seems to assume that people are all complete suckers who, as soon as they read a terrorist pitch, automatically become terrorists. In reality, all they're really doing is legitimizing much of this ridiculous content, by suggesting that it really is "dangerous" and somehow must be criminalized.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yet Another Attempt To Place Warning Labels On Video Games Based On Zero Evidence

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:59:00 PDT

Last year, we reported on the bill presented by Representatives Joe Baca and Frank Wolf that would require video games in the U.S. to carry a vague (and untrue) warning about their link to violence. At the time, the proposed message was:

WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior

That bill (which had actually failed once before, in 2009) died in committee. Well, it looks like Baca and Wolf are at it again—and not only are they continuing the crusade, they're upping the ante. Whereas the previous bill would have applied to games rated T (Teen) or higher, the newly proposed Violence In Video Games Labeling Act (pdf and embedded below) would apply to games rated E (Everyone) and up, meaning all video games except those rated EC for early childhood. Even more galling, they've modified the mandatory warning, which now reads:

WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.

Note the removal of both the "excessive" qualifier and the mention of "other violent media", making this new warning even more ridiculous than the previous one. As multiple studies have pointed out, the link between video games and violence is flimsy at best. The Supreme Court also rejected the key study claiming a link exists when they ruled California's anti-violent video game law to be unconstitutional. With all that, you'd think Baca and Wolf would know better than to fight for these warning labels yet again—let alone to ask for a warning that's even broader and less accurate, and which would be placed on countless video games that don't even contain any violence. Hopefully congress will recognize this, and prevent Baca and Wolf's petty, baseless moralizing from placing a needless restriction on free speech.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

South African Recording Industry Association Kicks Off 'Shoot The Pirate' Campaign; Amazed That Real Violence Ensues

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:38:55 PST

Apparently, the Recording Industry of South Africa (RISA -- the local equivalent of the RIAA) decided to run an "anti-piracy" campaign in that country with the rather astoundingly hyperbolic theme of "Shoot the Pirate." And now, it appears, they're absolutely stunned that this campaign has resulted in actual violence. As part of the campaign, a bunch of artists supporting RISA took to the streets to confront vendors of counterfeit CDs, and some brawls ensued -- leading to the arrest of a singer who physically attacked a vendor. And now some are claiming that death threats are being issued to those who put forth the campaign. Perhaps the choice of "shoot the pirate" wasn't exactly the best rhetorical choice for encouraging a reasoned response to some business model problems.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Being More Vocal In Video Game Violence Debate Mean You Have The Better Argument?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:09:23 PDT

A few folks sent over the news of some really bizarre research done by Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson on the question of whether or not violent video games harm teens. First of all, the research is already somewhat suspect, in that Anderson has a long history of claims about how violent video games must harm children based on questionable data. This new report is based on such questionable and loop methodology, you almost wonder why they even bothered.

What they did was take the amici briefs from the Supreme Court case concerning California's anti-violent video game law, and run some numbers on who wrote the briefs and how many "published" studies they had. And that was how they determined which one was more credible. I'm not kidding. Quantity over quality:

The researchers analyzed the credentials of the 115 people who signed the Gruel brief, who believe video violence is harmful, and the 82 signers of the Millett brief, who believe video violence is not harmful. (The briefs are named after the lead attorneys for each side.)

The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books.

For each of the signers of the two briefs, the researchers calculated how many articles and books they published on issues relating to violence and aggression in general and on media violence specifically.

The results showed that 60 percent of the Gruel brief signers (who believe video game violence is harmful) have published at least one scientific study on aggression or violence in general, compared to only 17 percent of the Millett brief signers.

Moreover, when the researchers looked specifically at the subject of media violence, 37 percent of Gruel brief signers have published at least one study in that area, compared to just 13 percent of the Millett brief signers.

And they claim that this is "a very objective approach." It's also a profoundly meaningless approach. In case you didn't follow it, there were a ton of amici briefs filed by various parties in this case. This study picked just two of the briefs. The first one (pdf) filed by California State Senator Leland Yee (whom, I believe, may have written the legislation in question), the California Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Psychological Association. That brief supports California's position in the case. The second one (pdf) is a brief from "social scientists, medical scientists and media effects scholars," which is the one that supports the other side, saying that the law isn't constitutional. You can read the two briefs that I linked to above, and you can judge the relative merits of both.

But that's not what Bushman and Anderson did. They simply took the signers of each brief and measured how many of them have published studies on this specific question. Of course, that's a meaningless and arbitrary number, especially when presented in percentages. Based on this methodology, it would mean that if only one person signed the amicus brief, but had published research, then that one would clearly be the most credible, since 100% of the signers would have published. Obviously, that makes no sense.

Now, Bushman and Anderson -- clearly expecting the quantity over quality issue to make for easy mockery of such a ridiculous study -- also added a second element to try to show "quality" as well:

In a further analysis, Bushman and Anderson examined where the signers of both briefs have published their research. The best academic journals have the highest standards and the most rigorous peer review, so only the best research should be published there, Bushman said.

The researchers used a well-established formula, called the impact factor, to determine the top-tier journals, and then calculated how many signers had published in these journals.

Results showed that signers of the Gruel brief had published over 48 times more studies in top-tier journals than did those who signed the Millett brief.

But, again, this attempt at showing "quality" is really a "quantity" study in disguise. It's not looking at the actual credibility of any of the studies, but trying to create an aggregate (but meaningless) number. And, again, the entire basis of this result is a meaningless dataset. I'm really wondering who would possibly read this and think that the results are credible.

Oh yeah, and one final point. Guess what two academics signed that first brief? You guessed it: Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman. Talk about researcher objectivity huh? They create a bogus methodology to try to "prove" that the brief they signed is more credible than someone else's brief? Honestly, when they present methodology like this, it serves mostly to raise questions about their methodology on any other study as well. They've made it clear that they're not researching the truth. They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bill Introduced To Require Bogus 'Warnings' On Video Games

Mike Masnick — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:02:00 PST

For years, we've looked closely at the various research on video games and aggression, and time and time again what comes up is that there's no clear link. Sure, some studies purport to show a link, but it's always in the interpretation, rather than the data. When you dig into the data you find something entirely different. At best, the studies have shown that people get emotional while playing video games, and that emotion may carry over for a short period of time. But there's nothing that shows it leads to increased violence. In fact, some of the research suggests that such content can often act as an outlet.

So it seems especially ridiculous to find out that Representative Joe Baca has decided to introduce a bill into Congress called the Video Game Health Labeling Act, which would require warning labels on video games which read:

WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior

Of course, this is silly for a whole bunch of reasons. First, it's not true, as discussed above. Some researchers have claimed this, but the research does not actually support it. Second, what a total waste of time. It's not as if anyone will actually pay attention to these labels anyway. One of the other backers of the bill, Rep. Frank Wolf made the following statement in support:

"Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents -- and children -- about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior.... As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games."

Except, as noted, the scientific evidence says no such thing. And, on top of that, there's already a (voluntary, but widely used) ratings system for video games, such that any buyers can easily find out about the nature of the games they're buying. A warning label doesn't change that at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Richard Blumenthal Grandstands Over Violent Video Game Ban, While Publicly Displaying Ignorance Of Facts

Mike Masnick — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:28:35 PDT

We've seen all sorts of grandstanding state attorneys general seeking higher office, but Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal (running for the Senate) seems to work hard, not just at picking up on ridiculous anti-technology and anti-innovation topics to grandstand over, but he seems to do so with amazing cluelessness both about the law and whatever it is he's talking about. His latest is that he's filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the case about California's failed attempt to ban the sale of violent video games. As noted, more than 10 states have enacted such laws, and every single one of them has been struck down. You might think that an attorney general in charge of upholding the law would recognize that.

But, as Ben Kuchera at Ars Technica notes, Blumenthal seems to have announced this particular grandstanding campaign with a rather stunning number of factual errors that demonstrate an immense level of ignorance about what he's sounding off about.

Blumenthal also seems sadly ignorant of the state of video games and retail. "In the face of continued industry inaction--enabling unattended children to buy such games--states must preserve their critical right to protect children," he stated.

The problem with Blumenthal's argument is that the industry has not been in a state of inaction, as the ESRB has long assigned ratings to games, giving an accurate idea of the content included in them, and has made serious efforts when it comes to community and parental outreach to make sure the ratings are both understood and used. Chains such as GameStop and even Walmart actively check the ID of customers buying M-rated games.

Then there's the claim that video games should "follow the leadership of the motion picture industry" in its system to prevent children from viewing certain content. What he seems to be missing is that video games already have a very similar system, and have for years, and, in some ways, it's even more restrictive than the movie industry's.

And, of course, none of this notes that the research seems to show that violent video games aren't actually harmful to kids after all. But, you know, when you have a Senate campaign to run, "think of the children" just plays so well with the ignorant masses...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story