Critical Hit

If the point is to keep kids from playing violent and sexually explicit videogames, then the reason for it is to ensure that they don't grow up with the wrong set of values. Certainly if Joe Lieberman and his supporters believe that media like videogames have the power to corrupt children and youth, they also believe that it can be used to teach what they feel are proper, moral values. This notion of children and media pervades every one of those quotes, and each of the speakers presumes children and youth to be nothing more than empty vessels, waiting to be filled with whatever is washed up from the media wave. At this time, it's not explicitly apparent what proper moral values might be, but often harsh words against games like GTA3 are often tempered with a comment about the potential for interactive media as a educational tool. There is, however, a clear communication of what is immoral, and much of the rhetoric is about creating anxiety, fear, and even shame about that 'immorality.'

What is perhaps the most distressing is that this moral shame is also being foisted upon adults who purchase or produce such games. Although much of the National Institute on Media and the Family's focus is on children, there is nothing in their drive petition that suggests the issue is only about children, and doesn't simply ask for a halt to marketing such games to children. Instead, the petition suggests a blanket solution where Take Two Interactive completely 'stop the sexual violence in [their] games' altogether. It isn't merely a request to regulate the sale of videogames to minors, but more a demand that adults modify their behaviour-in essence, giving up GTA3 for the kids. A better example might be Joe Baca's Protect the Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act, which carries the not-so-subtle message that anyone who allows anyone under eighteen to play violent and sexually explicit videogames, including parents, is somehow endangering children.

Many have said the issue is not one of banning violent or sexually explicit games, but that's not entirely true. Many government officials, as well as child welfare advocacy groups, are looking to also affect the buying habits of responsible, adult gamers by trumpeting the welfare of children. In an interview with GameDaily, Mary Lou Dickerson said, "The well being of children always trumps the First Amendment. That's why we have prohibitions against retailers selling pornography, tobacco and alcohol to minors." Simply comparing videogames to something like pornography, or suggesting games are potentially addictive substances like nicotine and alcohol is offensive enough, but to use the welfare of children as leverage to get around the First Amendment is nauseating. Increasingly, it's feeling more and more like gamers are being held hostage by the welfare of children. While in some ways, legislation like Bill 1009 appears to be empowering parents on the surface, it is the opposite. Because the legislation is accompanied by such moral wrangling, there is an implication that parents who knowingly allow children to play Mature games are somehow irresponsible. When Lieberman said the GTA3 was 'sick and indefensible,' he was also indirectly referring to any adults who played the game as well. By association, gamers who purchased, played, and maybe even enjoyed GTA3 were also 'sick.' Maybe even helping to 'nurture misogynistic behaviours in young boys.'

Ultimately this entire issue comes down to whether or not games like GTA3 do in fact make their way into the hands of minors without parental consent, as well as whether playing such games actually causes any harm. Ironically enough, two reports done by government institutions (the Surgeon General and the Federal Trade Commission) seemingly fly in the face of claims by characters like Dickerson and Baca.

With respect to the former issue, it actually seems that parents are often present during the purchase of not just Mature-rated games, but are in fact present for most purchases in general. At this year's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the Interactive Digital Software Association's (IDSA) president Doug Lowenstein presented the IDSA's annual survey of videogame sales, demographics and usage data. The survey found that eighty-nine percent of the time parents were present whenever their children purchased games. Perhaps aware that some would criticise the survey's partiality Lowenstein also mentioned that the Federal Trade Commission's own statistical findings suggested that parents were present eighty-three percent of the time when their children purchased a game. The FTC's findings were also something Lowenstein cited in his response to Washington Governor Gary Locke signing Bill 1009 into law. Such findings are also reasonable to expect when the price of a game is considered. At an average of fifty dollars, price is a natural barrier that prevents most teenagers and children from purchasing games without first asking for money from a parent.

In fact, despite an incredibly negative report by the FTC in 2000, the FTC has seems to have warmed up to the videogame industry of late. The 2000 report found the videogame industry, as well as the music and movie industries, guilty, for lack of a better word, of marketing violent and sexually explicit materials to minors. In contrast, a prepared statement released in October of 2002 said the FTC 'found widespread compliance with video game industry self-regulatory standards.' There were still a few minor issues, but overall the FTC said 'there is much in the game industry's rating disclosure requirements that merits duplication by others.' Basically, besides infrequently selling games to minors without parental consent, the videogame industry has significantly reduced its marketing of violent games to youths. With such findings by a government agency like the FTC, it's baffling to see government officials like Joe Baca and Mary Lou Dickerson wishing to further regulate the distribution of certain game content via government legislation.

And what of the potential for violent games to affect the behaviour of the youth who play the games-the impetus behind all this government legislation? In 2001, the Surgeon General released a report on youth violence, and a section in the report tried to address the issue of the effect of violence in the media on the behaviour of youth. The report is often cited by many in the game industry whenever questions are raised about the effect of media violence on minors. Still, seeing as it was written by a government agency, it's worth repeating again.

Perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the report states:

…the preponderance of evidence indicates that violent behavior seldom results from a single cause; rather, multiple factors converging over time contribute to such behavior. Accordingly, the influence of the mass media, however strong or weak, is best viewed as one of the many potential factors that help to shape behavior, including violent behavior.

If violent behaviour is shaped by multiple factors, it almost seems a little irresponsible to suggest that by simply removing violence from the media diets of youth, that violent behaviour can be somehow contained. There's probably no one who would deny that exposure to excessive amounts of violent media has an impact on behaviour. However, by putting so much focus on videogames, legislators and child/family welfare groups are probably overlooking if not ignoring other important contributing factors. The possible benefits of regulating media content could be nullified if other contributing factors are not dealt with as well. Perhaps to reinforce this notion, towards the end of the media effects section of the report, it 'suggests that multilayered solutions are needed to address aggressive and violent behavior.'

Given the Surgeon General's report, along with the FTC report, there seems to be little reason as to why legislation such as Bill 1009 is even necessary. The videogame industry is no longer actively marketing violent and sexually explicit games to a young audience. Few Mature-rated games are sold to minors without parental consent. And according to a few passages in the Surgeon General's 2001 Report on Youth Violence, simply focusing on regulating media alone isn't going to be an effective method for reducing youth violence. In my own opinion, we aren't even likely to see any tangible results from legislation like Bill 1009. What both reports essentially amount to is that there is not an immediate and apparent danger posed by violent forms of media like GTA3.

Without a significant threat posed by violent videogames, it's difficult to imagine that the issue is about anything else other than a particular group of people are taking offense to some of the materials that other folks play. Especially with such strong rhetoric backing up each piece of legislation, it's hard not to be suspicious of all the moral posturing. Unfortunately, the last thing that the FTC and Surgeon General's reports have produced is calm in Washington. As mentioned earlier, every bit of regulatory legislation is accompanied by great rhetoric that no doubt will send anxious parents towards hysteria. Government legislators, along with child and family welfare advocacy groups, like to paint parents as hapless, unable to stop the flood of 'indecent' materials thrown at them. Worse, such legislation also implies that parents are unable to teach their children to understand and deal with 'indecent' materials. Meanwhile, the ten million (likely) healthy and well-adjusted gamers who purchased GTA3 probably will, in the future, have to buy their games from under counter like some form of contraband for fear of a child potentially even eyeballing a box cover.

I guess the children are protected. But who is protecting me from being called a misogynist or a 'virtual victimizer' by over-fifty, white-haired, lecturing blowhards?