August 26, 2007
It seems like everyone has an opinion on California's controversial video game law these days.The 2005 legislation, which would have placed age restrictions on violent video games, was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court judge. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to appeal.
The latest to offer an opinion on the California law is the Ayn Rand Institute, located in Irvine. In a press release, executive director Dr. Yaron Brook (left) said:
A violent video game is not a physical threat to a child. Like a book or a movie, its effects are intellectual - it depicts words and actions that communicate certain ideas and values...
Parents have the right - and the responsibility - to judge the messages about violence conveyed by a particular video game and to decide what messages about violence their children may be exposed to...
The ultimate result of video game bans would be to establish a dangerous precedent: that the government should have the power to decide what ideas children may be exposed to...
Parents properly want to shield their children from the gratuitous violence so common in today's video games. But we must not allow power-hungry politicians to use that desire as a pretense for usurping the rights of parents to oversee the intellectual upbringing of their children.
Comments
I could not agree more. Allowing the government to control the flow of information to minors is DANGEROUS. It is essentially a form of state based mind and thought control on youth.
Minors especially older minors and teenagers should have the right to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted, uncensored access to media that present ideas, information, messages and opinions. To do otherwise would mean that once a minor reaches "enter arbitrary age limit for legal adulthood here" their minds would be a blank and they'd be unequipped to deal with the real world as we know it.
It is great to see that intelligent, rational people preside over the Ayn Rand Institute. If this guy would have supported the law, it would have been urinating on everything that Ayn Rand stood for.
oh wait, JT sounds like a douchebag whenever he opens his trap......
All these people who keep supporting free speech, and all the gamers and industry reps should really start their own publicity campaign to nip this in the bud.
So far the critics have been preaching their ignorance to the public and the government and getting things done, and we have crushed the every attack, folks, its time we went on the offensive.
Don't get the joke? Go play Bioshock
@ Dexee
lol good reference. However, I don't know how likely it is that the government would burn video games as they were discovered :P
The only reason it works in the UK is because the same rating system, and board, works on every form of media, and even then 'works' is only to a relative value, and it's a lot harder to censor a film because of a Political or Religious message than for a Violent one.
I think is where the confusion arises in some cases. In the UK, Politicial or Social agendas that involve harming others are illegal, and are considered hate speech. Politicians don't seem to be able to figure out what games are, they see them as a form of Media that projects a 'Violent Message', but unlike Movies, which are considered to be 'Just a Story' and therefore not real, they haven't had time to slot Video Games into that category yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy
GamerDad Shrugged.
It's no secret that these legislative measures are just measures to push their own agenda. What does it matter to the average Joe if the small chunk of cash from his paycheck to fund taxes is missing, if the reasoning behind taking said funds is to fund measures that will somehow protect our children better than parents can?
By stating that they had "legal experts" and "medical evidence", they essentially "inform" the public that what they're doing makes sense. And since most bad parents are the type who don't wish to be held accountable for the things their children are exposed to, they'll readily accept the idea of blaming it on something or someone else.
I don't 100% agree with Objectivism, it's a little over-reaching and tries to define too much using a scientific instead of a social viewpoint, from a scientific viewpoint, both Eugenics AND Euthenasia are considered to be acceptle and already implementable option, but from a social viewpoint, it's a whole different kettle of fish depending on which country you are in. But the root ethics of it, that each man exists to forward his own personal cause, is hardly a million miles off the mark.
The quote is well-stated, concise, and IMO on-target. That doesn't mean that Ayn Rand or her philosophies are no longer creepy.
I need to read more on the Ayn Rand Institute.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
dear god i understood the last part
This entire mess in California was happily initiated by Leland Yee, a hardcore liberal politician who supports the idea of a "nanny state" where the government does all the thinking for you. Yee is also an opportunist. IMHO, he's much, much worse than John Bruce Thompson, because Yee actually attacked the constitution, even though he was unsuccessful. In Yee's district, many people share that same idea, and set of beliefs. Then you have a politically weakened Schwarzenegger who COULD HAVE ABSTAINED from supporting Yee, but he chose (or his handlers told him to) to back Yee's misguided attempt at undermining the first amendment of the constitution. No outside experts were sought-Yee's agenda was good enough for Schwarzenegger. There was no constitutional logic applied here, and wouldn't have been anyway.
Schwarzenegger is a changed man, which is too bad, because I used to support his political agenda-and then he started flip flopping on all kinds of issues.
Granted I'm instantly critical of anything with Ayn Rand's name on it. However, he's forgetting that many states have child bans on pornography and violent movies rated NC-17 or R.
While yes, in reality the real problem is screwed up kids and
Anyway, he's totally off base. There's no power to be gained from keeping a kid from buying BioShock or Halo 3. It's just public policy.
BTW, this isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's authoritarian vs non-authoritarian. Keeping crazy ass, screwed up from the start kids from violent video games -does- make sense. If you, as a parent, don't mind the kid having video games that depict graphic violence, you buy it for them.
incorrect, states only have laws against Pornography. There are no laws that ban children from R or NC-17 movies, especially not laws that ban them because of violence... the ONLY time it would be illegal for a child to see an NC-17 movie is if that movie had enough sexual content to be classified as pornography; which generally doesn't happen since the porn industry doesn't go to the MPAA for ratings and just use "X"; not to mention that such a film would not be shown in movie theaters... it is legal for children to see R and NC-17 movies... the only reason they can't is because of VOLUNTARY efforts by the movie industry.
Wrong. The MPAA system is completely voluntary, and carries no weight of law behind it, exactly as the ESRB is currently. As Monte stated the only way it would carry any force of law behind it is if it carried enough sexual content to be pornography.
And yes, there is power to be gained. Each time the government butts into our personal business they intrude on our rights. Though democrat myself this is something I admired about old school republicans, small government.
But then, I think part of the point is that the very struggle between Alpha and Omega are what keep civilisation pushing itself.
That being said, she was crazy smart and makes a lot of sense, sometimes. In this case, I completely agree. On the issue of intellectual freedom, to give an inch is to lose a mile.
@Taiki
Ayn Rand would've hated laws restricting the sale of pornography as well...
As for all this BS, I can still remember writing an essay two years ago on how people like Jackyboy are wrong. Much fun. Even if it was punishment for having Postal 2 (an illegal game even here in NZL) on my computer at tech.
What is going on?!
I sir, award you with a standing ovation.
I wouldn't say I was a fan either, I don't really know the whole institute in detail enough to be a fan, as such, but the basic philosophy is mostly scary for being accurate to degree, most people are in it for 'Number 1'. If I remember correctly, 'Atlas Shrugged' had a highly oppressive world was not based on Objectivity, but on the lack of it.
I'm not a fan of 'complete permissiveness', which is, from what I get from the posts here, what Ayn Rand is about, but the right of Parents to raise children their own way, whether that way be 'right' or 'wrong', is something we'll agree upon. That means that the child can be anyone from Jack Thompson to Strauss Zeinick, in a way, in order for society to stay 'healthy' we need them both, or, at least, we need opinions that differ as widely, to be heard. The moment humanity forces itself into a controlling set of values, stagnation occurs, those values should always be challenged.
My question was largely rhetorical, but thanks for your input anyway! :)
About Ayn Rand: While I'm a Libertarian myself, I don't like what little I can gather about her ideas. She seems to get WAY too philisophical about the individual, which I believe is excessive because it should be matter-of-fact that each person is in charge of their own destiny.
Before you throw anymore eggs at Rand, folks, just keep in mind that while she may have been one of the founders of American Libertarianism, not all Libertarians are as extreme as her.