What is wrong with Britain?

Oh and incidentally… 25 to Life is a game that lets you play as a police officer and use none lethal means to bring criminals to justice as much as it’s a ‘cop killing game’. Just thought I’d point that out as it seems like most every single person outside of gaming missed that part.

That second story is from The Sun, a publication that is undeniably at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to tabloid newspapers in the UK. Apart from sensationalising stories, it’s main claim to fame is the Page 3 Girl — photo spreads of trashy, nude women. Despite its dubious journalistic practices, a readership of about 3 million nationwide.

And don’t get me started on The Daily Mail.

you’re right about the story being from the sun, and yes, it’s a tabloid, (I’m originally from the UK so I know exactly why we aren’t mentioning the Daily Mail) but you’d think a paper that revels in cheeky headlines and topless models would be a bit more lenient towards video games than the Daily Mail. I would anyway.

Sad but true - newspapers can be as biased as they like.

While TV news has at least a certain degree of impartiality imposed on it, newspapers aren’t really required to tell both sides of the story.

As pointed out papers like the Daily Mail and the Sun are well known for writing loaded, sensationalist articles.

But I think the main point of your article is right. The current generation who rally against violent games are people who have not grown up in games - just like old people in the 60s cited rock and roll as a bad influence on children so there are people citing games as a cause of problems.

This attitude should gradually erode as time goes on, although I feel there will always be a few isolated cases where games recieve blame once again, particularly if a developer is making an effort to court with controversy.

*puts on ACLU hat*

The Problem is we don’t live in England in the United States and American law grants all Americans the rights to free speech which can only be impinged upon in some very very narrow exceptions. As soon as you governmentize the ratings systems you’re imposing the state’s judgement on what content is acceptable for consumption by huge numbers of readers. Porn for instance is unique because one of the few exceptions is contet which is obscene. Games aren’t obscene under the case Miller v California (at least not on any scale that matters) as the content shown on cinemax to anyone who watches in the middle of the night would need to be taken off the air first and a whole range of other products before games. Cigarettes have been shown to be biologically harmful–they cause a range of diseases. The research on games isn’t 1/10 as good nor 1/10000th as conclusive. There is no evidence that games cause violence like their is that cigarettes cause cancer. Their is no serious study out there that says play a lot of games and you’ll be a rare exception to the rule if you don’t commit a violent crime. That’s a pretty substantial difference.

I’m personally not about to accept a case which limits free speech rights over the crappy asortment of evidence that games cause violence. And people say it’s to protect children that’s fine and dandy but the government doesn’t get to say what’s acceptable for children and what’s not. That’s not their job that’s a parental responsibility full stop. Once the precedent is in the door that protecting children from phantoms that may or may not even exsist is a constitutional basis for impinging on the American Public’s free speech rights you can bet it’ll have a chilling impact on all forms of speech in general.

Even if you had a good case for doing so the forms of the first 10 ammendments are so part of what makes America, what it is that changing those is a political hot potato that no one really wants to pick up. They’re willing to knowingly pass laws that violate it but do so knowing they can blame the courts when it comes election time and grand stand like they’re out to protect the kids.

And what’s more we don’t need federal censorship. The Ratings system works folks. The notion of the M-Rating, much like the R-Rating at the movies isn’t intended to be a ban on children purchasing it. It’s an advisory sticker so that parents can make the choice on if it’s acceptable or not. All the complaints stem from people who feel they need a government limiting the rights of Americans and to criminalize parents who don’t agree with a ratings system is obscene. My little brother (age 9 ) and I beat Halo together because I don’t buy the argument that limited exposure to violent games makes you violent; that’s not criminal. The government doesn’t know than parents how to raise children. The Ratings system has done it’s advisory job admirably–if you want them enforced your beef is with retailers not with game makers. The game makers can’t force Wal-Mart and target to do what their advisory says. Their are retailers associations you should be taking your arguments to with a boycott if you don’t like their policy. Believe it or not if enough people actually care (which is a suspect matter as most parents don’t buy it according to studies on this) then a boycott is a very effective weapon to affect change

I won’t tell the people of the UK how to govern themselves. If they like their government having the say on what’s acceptable for children and censoring speech then that’s their bussiness. But this doesn’t fit with American legal tradition at all nor do I think it good policy for Americans. Regardless of any practical benefits the insubstantial practical implications of the government being able to tell parents what’s appropriate speech for their children to be exposed to is bad news.

I say just enforce your ratings and be done with it. Make ESRB ratings mandatory and legislate them as a proper law. Fine retailers millions for selling R rated games to minors. Hell, fine them a percentage of their annual earnings, that’ll even boost your economy a bit.

Here in Aus we have the ESRB ratings and our own OFLC ratings on games, and the OFLC ones are enforced by law. I can’t see how making the ESRB ratings law can possibly impinge on “free speech” (which is something I personally find laughable).

Restricting the sale of M and MA rated games to minors is a good idea. I know there are a lot of 16 year olds who hate me for saying it, but it’s the truth. Don’t go so far as to ban anything, just rate it R or AO or whatever the hell is the American equivalent and be done with it. That way Jack or Hillary or whoever is jumping on the “f*ck video games” bandwagon will have nothing to complain about and will hopefully die off due to natural selection cutting off their publicity supply.

#6 –> “R rated games”

Don’t know if that was intentional or not, but it works to illustrate the odd distance folks place between M rated games and R rated films. True, games are driven by physical interaction and perhaps quite visceral as a result, but nothing so far comes even close to the imagery to be viewed in your standard Restricted movie. I would think the fact that films offer living, breathing humans in the midst of violent or sexual activity would be more harmful in the popular view, but can’t understand why video games are considered even more destructive.

I suppose I’m wishing the media and people in general placed a more direct connection between the various entertainment mediums, so that the free-and-clear R rating of cinema can be somehow associated with the M rating of electronic gaming. Where what’s allowed, enforced, and “not sold to minors” in one area can have some overlap into another, if only as a new mentality for those so adament about blaming games at the exclusion of every other negative facet of society.

^ meant to say, “free-and-clear R rating of cinema can be associated with the vile-and-detested M rating…”

Almost like some kind of … gradual redemption, eh?

all good points but kinda off topic really… which was ‘why is that in a country where the government controls who can buy minor games is the game industry blamed when an underage teenager buys one and commits crimes’. it isn’t against free speech in america to put a law enforcing the ratings any more than it is to make it illegal for porn to be sold to minors.

R rated movies aren’t equivalent to M rated games though. M rated games are equivalent to nc-17s, which *are* vile and detested (though for some reason unrated films released on DVD are just brilliant and highly marketable… but that’s another discussion).

enforcing ratings won’t stop Jack, maybe Hilary. Jack got involved in one of the cases above, all the way across the ocean, in a country that DOES enforce it’s ratings. Jack claims he just wants to see the ratings enforced, but that’s patently a lie in the light of that action. Jack, and a lot of the others, aren’t going to go anywhere with the passing of a few laws sadly.

‘Scuse me then. The commotion over this is popping up at every turn and its easy to get carried away down different roads.

Sheps how can you not see the impingement on free speech. As soon as you federalize the ratings process they become a government agency deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for children. Why do we assume that the government is qualified to make such a call for every child in america about what non-harmful substances children ought to be entertaining themselves with. That gives them the ability to ban games in all but technicality. It’s not banned it’s just not carried by any major retailer. There is no proven compelling state interest for any of this. A beaurucrat isn’t better able to judge what my nine year old brother is capable of seeing than my parents and I are.

Pornography is a special case because it’s obscene content. The courts have held that their is a compelling state interest in that case. Ciggarettes and alcohol are another one because they’ve been shown to be harmful substances. Video games are niether and you’d be creating a new exception– you can impinge on people’s right to expess themselves without government approval if stuff is obscene, harmful, or we just don’t like or understand it. I don’t know why Europeans and Australians are so okay with the government being so a part of the deal but that doesn’t really jive with American tradition.

I don’t know why you’re willing to let the government tell you what your kids should and shouldn’t be allowed to play. I’m certainly interested in an advisory board being there but it should hardly be written into the law.

OK, let’s cut a parallel here and I’ll return to games in a moment…

I’m not sure how much news this was outside of the UK but about 13-years ago a 2-year old toddler was murdered by a pair of then 11-year old boys (see here for The Guardian’s archives on the Jamie Bulger case). The case was pretty horrific for a number of reasons. However, where this draws relevance is in the way in which films, specifically the Child’s Play horror films, were implicated as a factor in the reason why the perpetrators conducted this crime. Cue general public outcry. While some stores did remove the implicated films from their shelves, they are back now and the horror movie industry doesn’t appear to have impacted much.

The case and the “offending” catalyst may be different but it sounds very familiar. As far as I am aware, no scientific study was performed into investigating a link between violent films and propensity to commit crimes, and the credibility to such studies are usually dubious. However, the question must be asked, would this crime have been committed if the film had never been made?

I’m pretty much on the fence with the whole subject of violent media. We talk about these materials only being suitable for “mature” people but I’m increasingly becoming convinced that they serve no real purpose beyond giving us some sort of perverse thrill that some people take too far. The more I think about it the more I am in favour of these types of games, films, music, pictures, books, etc. disappearing altogether because they simply serve no useful purpose. Put another way, I think of reasons why they are bad but cannot think of a reason why they are good so the net result isn’t good.

Back to gaming and my final statement: If you enjoy virtually killing people, regardless of how their characters are portrayed, then there’s probably something not right with you. The problem is that I include myself in this and that disturbs me more than the rest of this.

Jack Thompson is a self-righteous, arrogant fop who’s sole mission in life is to make money. That’s all he really acres about…oh and getting his name in the press no doubt.

Games are picked on because they are seen as being played my immature teenagers with no social skills…and we all know that this is not true.

Vermouth: While you can’t see why we’re willing to put up with governmental intervention, I can’t really see why you’re so against it.

Honestly, all that restricting the sale of these things to minors will do is force parents to purchase the game for their kid. It will make them look at the box and wonder why they have to buy it and that, in anyone with an IQ over 35, will make them examine the back of the box. All an enforced rating would do is restrict the sale, not the use, thereby forcing parents to take an interest. Realistically they’re not telling you what to do, they’re telling your kids that they need your permission first.

I’m all for your crusade for freedom of speech, I just can’t see how stopping kids from purchasing manhunt will impinge on that right.

Because a guy working at the FTC can then take games off the shelf. Adults Only as it is is a ban. Let’s be real you can’t buy an Adults Only game at any retailer worth noting–so now the federal government ca come in and say that a game won’t be carried anywhere. Now maybe that’s not THAT big of a deal; but it sets a precedent that speech can be regulated for no reason whatsoever. Their is no conclusive proof that games pose a serious threat to young gamers, nor is their much of an argument it’s obscene. Their is no good argument to do this besides I don’t like what’s in games. And if the English model is to be accepted it is technically as against the law to buy a kid Halo as it is to buy him cigarettes. So it’s not just i have to look at the box and figure it out it’s i’m getting a ticket or going to prison or whatever the penalty is for playing Halo with my brother. Or in Australia their are games you just can’t buy because you’ve got a bunch of people running around with the notion that a state should have the right to tell people what is acceptable to put on the market and what is not. These models provide clear cases of why the government should be left out of this.

Because of the precedental issues I’d say they should be left out regardless of benefits but I think the English and Australian model of game ratings are far worse than our voluntary ratings systems of films and Movies. Why the games industry is blamed for the retailers inability to follow the guidelines set forward by the ESRB is beyond me. Nobody blames hollywood if someone sees a rated -r film they blame the theatre.

In Reply to #14: I’d echo those sentiments and extend them somewhat. The assumption made with letting parents decide what is right/wrong for their children rather than the government is that parents will actually exercise that right. While there are a lot of parents who take their responsibility seriously, there’s a lot that don’t. If we make the leap in thought that violent games can make someone more liable to commit violent acts (debate as you see fit), then should we take the chance that everyone will be responsible? I don’t think so.

While I don’t much like “The Man” telling me what I can or cannot do, we also need to be shielded from not just our own stupidity but that of others. I have no particular wish to have my own children (future tense here) shot by another parent’s child because the parent did not act responsibly.

Right because we all know government beaurucrats really know what’s for millions of children they’ve never met. I don’t want the government protecting people from their own stupidity. What an arrogant, insulting position that someone from thousands of miles away is goign to be better at making decisions than a parent who sees the child every day. As Ronald Regan said ” A government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also powerful to take it all away. This paternalistic attitude is a recipee for tyranny when extended as a precedent to all forms of speech.

Oh you’re too stupid to figure out how to teach your kids about morality we’ll do it for you. You’re too stupid to do anything the government will do it for you. Thanks but I’d rather be killed than live in the Orwellian world you’re leading us to. The one where the state can just decide it’s citizens are too stupid to raise their children for themselves so we need the nanny state to do it for them. You’re too stupid to be allowed to read the constitution, we’ll just tell you what it says, how’s that sound?

In Reply to #15:

“Because a guy working at the FTC can then take games off the shelf. Adults Only as it is is a ban.”

Whether that’s a bad thing or not is open to debate. What’s then stopping you from ordering the game direct from the publisher?

More on topic, that would encourage development teams and publishers to lower the violence level. I don’t mind a bit of violence, but a lot of games are pushing the envelope. Personally I’d rather see more story development than see what the lates DirectX shaders can do to make blood splatter more realistically.

I can see how you’d be concerned that your speech may be regulated (God forbid), but really, it wouldn’t allow for any more restrictions than are currently imposed from the current rules of political correctness.

I agree with Kelmon. Stupid people will be stupid if given the freedom to do so. The last thing I want is any kids I may have to be in the firing line when they do.

In Reply to #17:

Oh come off it, that’s taking it to the extreme. Given the way ratings really operate here (and probably in England as well) all it really does is get the parents to take notice of what their kids are buying. Introducing an enforced rating system will not cause the Thought Police to start knocking down doors.

Something you have to understand about England, is the power and influence of the tabloid media. One Sunday paper has finally managed to get the England football team manager to resign, after a prolonged hate campaign against him, despite the fact he is the best manager we’ve ever had.

It seems that half the population have their opinions formed for them every morning when they read their over the top, kneejerk reports.

There are various things that the media would have us believe are unassailable facts, and they love writing stories about them.

i) Violent video games cause children to got out and commit violence. They should be banned.

ii) Violet horror films cause children to got out and commit violence. They should be banned.

iii) Heavy metal music, Marylon Manson and Eminem cause children to got out and commit violence. They should be banned.

iv) Anyone that smokes dope will almost certain become a heroin addict; its a “Gateway Drug” don’t you know. It should be banned.

v) There are paedophiles on every street corner. We should lock up our children and organise lynch mobs (several innocent people, including paedotricans have been attacked following hysteria whipped up in our media).

vi) The internet is the domain of perverts, rapists and paedophiles. It should be banned.

vii) Princess Diana was a saint. Not a neurotic publicity seeker.

Once you have understood that, you may realise that the only people in this country that actually believe that violent games cause kids to commit violence, are complete idiots, of which there are many. As a nation we are quick to anger, and slow to comprehend. People like Jack Thompson understand that, and exploit it.

Of course it’s the extreme but when dealing with precedental issues of free speech, religion, you always should consider the worst case scenario as a possible result at some point down the road from the impact of the precedent being set.

Why shouldn’t you have the freedom to be stupid? Why does the government get to decide what’s “stupid” and then tell people not to be it. I don’t remember a clause of the constitution that provides for that. Political correctness is self imposed, we use it because we choose to and can willingly choose not to.

But again it comes down to who gets to decide what’s appropriate for whom. In other words because the government is applying the tags they’re altering the creative process and impacting ones freedom to create the work they choose because the government told them that they wouldn’t be able to sell that work to the intended audience. If you can do this to games you can do it to films and books and anything else a child might come into contact with. Their is no special case here, there is no basis that we know 100 percent that games are special in some way. They may lead to more violent behavior but we can hardly say that we know 100 percent for sure so you’re basing it on the mere possibility. Anything is open to being censored if games are opened to being censored.

If politicians were suggesting this kind of stuff for films and books people would be up in arms, quite justifiably. Yet because it’s primarily a young person’s medium that they’re suggesting the government be able to say what’s going to be kosher for nobody complains as young people are largely politically apathetic. You may call it extreme to call it Orwellian or Tyrannical but the line of thinking is the same. Big brother knows how to make everything better because he knows better than you. Simply put the guys in Washington don’t know better, they very seldom if ever know better. I’ve always believed that as a whole the government which governs least does governs best.

actually in reply to #20 i can’t help but point out that dope is banned

interesting that someone brought up the bulger case. i’m very familiar with it. familiar enough to know that there was no evidence that the boys had even seen childs play 3 and that the retractions posted in the newspapers were very small and far from the front pages. people still think there was a direct link. no such defence, or testimony was ever put forth in their trails or as part of the investigation into their crimes.

here’s a trial where the tabloid newspapers actually broke laws by publishing the names and photos of the accused killers.

childs play 3 was to my knowledge never banned, but many retail and rental chains pulled the film, and i distinctly remember seeing one video store on the news BURNING their copies.

i’m not saying that videogames are the first thing to fall victim to this in the uk… and music is a different case in that for the most part the ‘PARENTAL ADVISORY’ sticker is a voluntary ratings system not legally enforced… but they’re certainly the current scapegoat. no one is blaming horror films and marilyn manson anymore. the problem is, that video games have been the scapegoat for a very long time, and there’s no sign of things getting any better, just signs that things are getting worse.

it might surprise you to learn that i draw a firm line at censorship. i’m against it in everyway. no film should ever have cuts mandated, or be out right banned, but legally enforcing a rating, perhaps because it’s something i grew up with, isn’t the same thing at all.

there’s a fine line between thought police and sensible governmental control i admit, but it exists and classification is the right side of that line to me. it would be better for most kids if their parents took an interest in what games they were playing. i know parents that have written letters to blockbuster and local game stores to say ‘let my son buy and rent anything’. these aren’t irresponsible parents, but parents who can see that their kid isn’t anything but a well mannered and responsible individual.

so long as the law isn’t making it illegal for a kid to be given or play that game, then to me it’s on the right side of the line. so long as the ratings are only based on whether or not the game is violent or sexual, and aren’t based on any political or social philosophy it has… then it’s on the right side of the line.

i’m not proposing we turn control over to the government. the bbfc in the uk do a fine job. yes, it can go horribly wrong, but so long as the classification body is independant, to both the government and the game industry… so long as is kept an eye on, it can and quite probably will evolve into something worthwhile. the bbfc was awful when it started out, now they’re pretty much on the nose. legally enforcing ratings has actually allowed for less censorship in video games ultimately in the uk, which is something i’m glad about.

From my perspective, words fail to describe how much I insist that rating systems are enforced. If a book, film, game or whatever is stated to be unsuitable for persons under the age of 13, for example, then whoever sells a copy of said material to someone under the age, or with the knowledge that it will be provided to someone under the age (e.g. said child is requesting mum to buy it for them at the counter), then they should have the book thrown at them. There is no way ever that I would consider it acceptable for a parent to decide that an 18-rated film was suitable to be shown to someone below that age. This makes for a very black and white rule and would at least go someway to protecting society from irresponsible parents.

Putting control of these materials in the hands of parents puts control into the hands of the weakest link. I find it both desirable and necessary that the government enforces these restrictions. When applied to games, this at least means that kids won’t be playing Virtual Slaughter 16 and that can only be a “Good Thing”.

Why, the very notion of age based ratings is that we can’t as a society look at every individual and assess their particualar ability to digest such information. We understand though that some people over 13 may be ill prepared for the content of a pG13 movie and some people under that age may be prepared for it but we take an average advisory rating based on a general and intrically incomplete picture based on the average. However a parent can assess the readiness of their particualar child for some particualr content.

Why do you assume the state knows best? Blanket solutions made by a government that has next to no contact with gamers, aren’t going to be as well tailored as speciffic solutions imposed by parents who live with the child every day. In my personal experience with children playing Soul Calibur (rated teens) is more likely to lead t o real life violence than playing Mature rated Halo. Inevitably fighting games lead to real fights wheras I play Halo with my brother and he doesn’t get any more violent over it. As such Halo and Half-Life are allowed in the house whereas Soul Calibur and Tekken are not.

Another interesting query is what about socially controversial content. I’m not talking BMX XXX or GTA stuff. Something like Shadow Hearts covenant which features gay characters. You can’t pretend like the Federal board (probably the FTC) won’t see political pressure to make sure that such a game is rated M or AO because of that. A ratings board that carries the imprimatu of government can never really be independent. Which is really the bigger problem is you can’t be both inependent and a federal regulatory agency. I don’t know where you get your delusions that you can be both independent and answerable to an elected offical. You’re either one or the other you can’t be both.

In Reply to #24: It is indeed a fair point that any ratings system is bound to screw-up. However, I do hold that it’s better than nothing and better than hoping that all parent’s exercise their responsibility.

What’s the compelling state interest? Their is no signifcant evidence that games are a causational motivator for games. No evidence that people who were totally normal and peaceful played a game and like a switch became killers. All the evidence points to the fact that people who had whole other sets of problems were compounded by the fact that they played large sums of games is the worst you can expect. And in most cases their parents bought them games in spite of the fact that the box gives you a clear set of descriptors for the content in the game.

All this does is add a layer of censorship where the government gets to decide stuff that it simply has no bussiness deciding. The body of evidence we had to have before putting warnings on Tobacco products was substantially greater than what we’ve got now. And if children playing games is such a social crisis, why is it that violent youth crime and violent crime is down like several fold while video game play is going up exponentially. Their is a good argument that video games can have some ill effects but it doesn’t amount to a strong body of science where classification (a soft form of censorship) of speech is concerned. Federal Regulation is to be the option of last resort only to be gone to when their is a real need for it when free market forces are creating a society that needs the government to step in for society to move on properly because it’s threatened by bussiness. Not because we are a bit annoyed with something, or we don’t like it. There is no reason for the government to be involved in this mess; and it is a violation of free speech to go in and write rules on a federal level about what children can and cannot see or play without a compelling state interest which their is insufficent evidence to support. If we knew for certain that their were harmful effects caused by video games, not that video games can be a contributory factor in certain circumstances, not that we think, not that we’re even fairly sure of, but instead were certain that would be one thing. But the evidence points in several directions at once about what level of impact playing violent games has upon children.