Quote:
Democratic Senators from New York and Connecticut are asking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate "impact of electronic media use."
A handful of US senators who are longtime foes of the video game industry took a first step Wednesday toward a future government crackdown.Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Hillary Clinton of New York, and Dick Durbin of Illinois persuaded a Senate committee to approve a sweeping study of the "impact of electronic media use" to be organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
This "is a big step toward helping parents get the information they need about the effect of media on their children," Lieberman said after the vote by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Lieberman's two Republican cosponsors of the bill are senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas.
The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process.
Lieberman boasts on his Web site that he "held the first hearings on the threat posed to children by video game violence" and strong-armed the industry into developing a ratings system under threat of government action. He and Clinton introduced legislation late last year that would ban the sale or rental of any "mature" or "ratings pending" video game to a minor, and Lieberman has singled out Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto for particular criticism.
If the CDC eventually produces a study claiming a link between violent video games and harm to minors, the future of state and federal laws targeting such games could be radically different. So far, those laws have been ruled unconstitutional because judges have not found that kind of link to exist.
"Down the road when--if there is some sort of finding that there is harm in this--then we're going to see calls to regulate speech because of the potential harm," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's where there's going to be a problem."
Missouri's St. Louis County had enacted a law prohibiting anyone from selling, renting or making available "graphically violent" video games to minors without a parent's or guardian's consent. But the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "before the county may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here, the county must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors."
In 2004, a federal district judge in Washington state tossed out a law penalizing the distribution of games to minors in which harm may come to a "public law enforcement officer." The "state of the research" does not justify the ban, US District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled.
Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical, and sociobehavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet, and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships, and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet, and cell phones would all be fair game.
But not all reception has been positive. The advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste deemed Lieberman its "porker of the month" shortly after the measure was first introduced, criticizing him for spending taxpayer money on "redundant studies" already undertaken by groups like the Kaiser Family Foundation and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
It was not immediately clear how much the original bill was amended beyond the funding component or when it would receive a full Senate vote. A similar bill introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, has not yet been considered by the US House of Representatives.
You just KNOW Jack Thompson's going to weigh in on this. So I'll cover my bases beforehand.
God damn, I hate Tim Buckley.
Huh, what? Sorry, I was miles away.
might I inquire as to why, out of curiosity?
(I'm with Zerosky on this - why do you hat Tim Buckley exactly? (other than his occasional 'just-plain-irritating' sense of humour))
I largely lost interest in this debate some time ago, but I'll chuck my two penn'orth in.
YES, videogames will affect the psychology of a child.
YES, children shouldn't be allowed to play whatever they want.
but on the other hand, I don't see why any organisation should be able to ban a child from playing - to use the classical example - GTA. It's a parents responsibility to look after their own child, and it irritates me no end to see people blaming it on the game itself.
Video games come with an age rating for a reason - if anybody below that age comes into contact with it, then it is the responsibilty of whomsoever gave them that contact
I occasionally wonder what the outcome of this would be should a research organisation determine that games are harmful to minors.
Should it be tighter controls over the sale of videogames... Well, so what? My parents bought me films and games that were well over my rating - I don't see how any tighter controls could prevent that.
Should it be a ban on violent games... Well that would be just plain wierd. For starters you would need to reclaim every copy of every violent game to make it a fair and just law... and I'm not giving up my stuff (certainly not without demanding that I be re-imbursed exactly what I paid for it). Then there would doubtless be complaints from the gaming community about the amount of violence in films - and we would start the whole cycle over.
I advocate letting parents take responsibility for the upbringing of their own kids, and making it their job to discipline them when necessary and to make sure that video games are not their whole life.
</rant>
Hmm... Slightly more provocative and ranty than I wanted it to be... But meh
Quote:
Video games come with an age rating for a reason - if anybody below that age comes into contact with it, then it is the responsibilty of whomsoever gave them that contact
Such as the state, for failing to pass legislation that takes account of all the irresponsilbe parents out there?
Personally, I'm all in favour of strictly enforcing age ratings on games, provided they don't clamp heavy censorship on the market as well, or something.
The UK has a stricter system of ratings, and it's never dones us any harm. In fact, it allowed Farenheit (Indigo Prophecy in the US) to be released uncensored here (unlike in the US) because they could legally restrict under-15s from playing it.
We didn't have any controversy over the Hot Coffee affair, either. Once again, under-18s aren't meant to be buying San Andreas, so who cares how explicit it is?
But for some reason morons in this country can't take responsibility for anything. So its not THEIR fault they bought the game CLEARLY marked M - MATURE - AGES 18+ ONLY for their ten year old. It's CLEARLY the fault of the video game.
I say this a lot recently, but...
Whatever I want to say, Rico just said it.
I've been playing Doom and such since the young age of 7, and I think I'm a fair, sane lad. Very educational my parents were.
~T2K
