What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

July 23, 2009 -

As GamePolitics and other news outlets have reported, the ESA is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the agency's ban on M and AO-rated video ads.

Here are excerpts from the justification section of CTA Ordinace 008-147, the document at the heart of the ESA lawsuit:

WHEREAS... the Chicago Transit Board established advertising guidelines permitting certain advertising in or upon Chicago Transit Authority vehicles and facilities; and

 

WHEREAS, According to an August 2008 Chicago Sun Times article at least 36 Chicago public school students have been killed since September 2007; and

 

WHEREAS, There is a demonstrable correlation between intensely violent video or computer games and violent or aggressive behavior (see "Video Game Violence and Public Policy" by David Walsh, Ph.D. and "The Effects of Violent Video Game Habits on Adolescent Hostility, Aggressive Behaviors, and School Performance" by Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh; and

 

WHEREAS, There is evidence that many of these violent video or computer games are marketed toward children under 17 years of age (see Federal Trade Commission study, September, 2000)...

The 2000 FTC report is, indeed, an indictment of video game industry marketing practices. On the other hand, the industry has made remarkable strides since then in restricting the access of minors to violent games.

In its May, 2008 report, the FTC found an 80% overall compliance rate in retail ratings enforcement, with top performer GameStop achieving a 94% compliance rate. Given that the CTA ordinance was passed in November, 2008, it's unclear why the 2000 data was used.

The full CTA ordinance may be found as "Exhibit 2" in the ESA's lawsuit. Click here for a copy of the 70-page PDF.


Comments

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Back in the 80's, Nintendo counter sued Universal Studios for trying to steal their IP when Universal claimed that Nintendo used the King Kong label without their permission.

Nintendo won because they proved in court that Universal Studios got the King Kong label because of the 50 year old movie lisence was already public domain and Universal never really owned King Kong at all.

 

And now this, if ESA wins, this will send a strong message to anyone trying to take on the Videogame Industry of any business is that there are some people in Videogames who really know their stuff.

And that the Videogame industry is not always fun and games.

 

Trying to take on Videogames because they look like an easy target will get you burned if you don't know who you are playing against.

 

TBoneTony

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

From my view, the advertising that was used contained no nudity, no violence.

Only just a few characters from the game GTA IV and seeing how the CTA has used old Data that has been proven in court (at least in Caliafornia) to be totally bogus and no logic to it, then it will not be surprising that the Chicargo Transit Authority will now be another community organisation that now owes (another videogame Industry type of business) a few million dollars.

From this point, I don't think that anybody would want to advertise videogames unless if it was for the Wii and rated E.

 

Lets face it, if businesses want to treat Videogames as Child Porn then let those businesses lose thousands of dollars in revenue all because of their sheer ignorance and in-ability to tell the difference between fantasy (Violent Videogames kill people because of the violent interactive nature that lasts for 800 hours in a game) and reality (people kill people because there is allot of anger and hate within them).

 

People who make Videogames and publishers who want to promote them the best way they can have got no need to kiss the asses of other people who can't really see the reality that Videogames are just as violent as TV, Movies, Music, Books and other entertainment mediums.

 

 

 

 

TBoneTony

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

This whole ordinance is based on purely emotion and no logic. And wow they are using the FTC studay from 2000? You mean back when the PS2 came out? And why are they putting in that 36 public school kids were killed? WTF does that have to do with anything? Are they really suggesting that video games had to do with those shootings and not the problems with gangs and poverty? I doubt most people in those neighborhoods could even afford any of the current gen consoles.The ESA is gonna rip them a new one in Court.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Whereas the evidence that video games cause violence has been consistently rejected

Whereas it's legal to sell games to children thus the ads don't encourage illegal activities by nature

Whereas newer data contradicts your claims

You really should never had made such a rule.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

If the CTA gonna use old data instead of the new one then they're gonna lose in court.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

WHEREAS, There is evidence that many of these violent video or computer games are marketed toward children under 17 years of age (see Federal Trade Commission study, September, 2000)

Really? They refer to an 8-year old (at the time the ordinance was passed) study to support their views instead of a more recent one that refutes their views? This is horribly surprising.

Why does this even matter? It is not illegal to market any video game to any age. They are not restricted by law like the CTA would like to think in their silly comparison to alcohol and tobacco.

WHEREAS, There is a demonstrable correlation...

Correlation does not imply causation, so that's straight out.

WHEREAS, According to an August 2008 Chicago Sun Times article at least 36 Chicago public school students have been killed since September 2007;

Blatant appeal to emotion to get the public to accept the ordinance. Disgusting.

And this is only in their first 4 points. I can't even imagine what a shitstorm the rest of the document is.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Wow, I had a really hard time reading that. Where were the veiled threats and the pictures to help me figure out what was being said? Were they cut off?

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

 Oh great, so when they loose they are going to whine to the state how much more money they need and raise the fares big time

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

"WHEREAS, According to an August 2008 Chicago Sun Times article at least 36 Chicago public school students have been killed since September 2007"

 

Ummm...is it because the city is also a cesspool of constant drugs and gang violence?

And most of the gangs i've heard about kill innocent kids (like students) out of jealously,fear,intimidation or......oohhh get this, They even threaten kids or young adults not go to school.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104566915

Magic Taco

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Classic example of 'instead of solving the real (and difficult) problem, let us scapegoat in such a way that we get reelected!'

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

And a mix of the old "let's keep removing things these kids have to do so this problem stays and we can pretend ot fix it"

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

WHEREAS, the CTA has not banned ads from violent Movies, Books, or any other form of media. 

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Given that the CTA ordinance was passed in November, 2008, it's unclear why the 2000 data was used.

That is an easy answer. Voluntary selective ignorance. The very same thing that Yee, PTC and all those other voluntarily ignorant individuals and groups use.

They pick and choose data that supports their views while ignoring anything that contradicts their views even if what their using has been superseded by more recent work by the very same organization that produced what they want to use.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

There's a subtle but important difference between how an age-restricted product is marketed and how efforts are made to ensure that those below the age-restriction cannot purchase the product. That's what got Camel cigarettes in trouble: the appearance that it's cartoon-like Joe Camel advertising campaign was deliberately designed to appeal to and was targeted at minors by means of both the advertising's substance and the places in which the advertising was placed. No one was accusing Camel of failing to ensure that minors didn't purchase their products. It was how and where they were marketing the product which was the problem. If I'm not incorrect, the 2000 FTC report speaks to marketing efforts, while the later reports speak to compliance efforts.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

All very well and good, but this is all moot considering that video games aren't age restricted. Any video game (that isn't obscene or otherwise restricted) could be directly advertised to 10-12 year olds perfectly legally from what I understand.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Your understanding is wrong. The government is always capable of restricting speech provided it can satisfy the requirements imposed by the First Amendment. For example, if the applicable requirements are (a) a rational basis to restrict the speech and (b) the restrictive means employed is no more expansive than needed to effect the desired restriction (the so-called "rational basis test"), then the goverment need only prove that there is some non-irrational need to restrict the speech (e.g., by proving that violent videogames are harmful to minors, therefore it needs to restrict the advertising of violent videogames in the transit system where such advertising may be viewed by minors) and that the means employed is as narrowly-tailored as possible to acheive the desired outcome (e.g., by proving that there is no less restrictive means of ensuring that minors using the transit system will not be exposed to violent videogame advertising other than to completely ban such advertising from the transit system). If the government can satisty these twin requirements, then they are free to restrict the advertising. And it works like this for all speech. Provided the government can meet the particular burden which the First Amendment requires of them in order to restrict any given form of speech (and this burden varies with the type of speech being restricted, the nature of the restriction, and the reasons for its restriction), then they do get to restrict that speech.

That the sale of age-restricted videogames to those under the age of restriction is prohibited by law would be helpful to the government in satisfying the rational basis test. But it isn't essential. As the fact that such sales aren't prohibited by law isn't fatal to the government's ability to satisfy the rational basis test.

As a perhaps interesting aside, it's possible that under the rational basis test the government wouldn't have to conclusively and beyond a shadow of a doubt prove that videogames are harmful to minors. It may well be sufficient that it present enough evidence to withstand the challenge that the claim of harm is completely irrational.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

 And this is why the ESA will trash them in court.  Rule one if more recent information /judgement has been made then that is the one used (baring on the more recent judgement being made by a lower entity then the one being disputed).  So in this case ESA will present the information they avoided that was newer which since being from the same organization will dispute their claims while also underminding their ability to retort since they willingly used outdated information to make their case in the first place.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Someone should explain to the CTA the difference between "correlation" and "causation".

Edit: Maybe someone should send them this link: Correlation does not imply causation

"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people overstretch correlation:causation. Simple correlation does not mean causation, but correlation is still a very significant experimental and observational phenomenon, and is the basis of demonstrating causation.

Doesn't change the fact that the correlation is weak to start with between video game play and violence and often vanishes entirely when exposure to real violence, especially in the home, is controlled, but correlation is still a very significant fact. For example, it's been "known" for around 110 years that certain types of bacteria removed nitrogenous waste compounds from soil and water. That knowledge has been applied heavily in agriculture, aquaculture, and sewage processing for decades, but before Tim Hovanec's work in 1995, the only evidence of that fact was a simple correlation.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

" There is a demonstrable correlation.." and that is where I lol'ed and stopped reading.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Oh my goodness.  This is going to be a rape.  And the ESA is going to have the CTA bent over a table, gagged, while they wait for the gimp to show up.

Oh, by the way.  If you want less kids to shoot each other, how about doing something about the gang problem in your shithole city?

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

I really love how the CTA considers themselves a private organization until THEY NEED TEH MONIEZ!

GameSnooper

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Well they TRIED handgun bans within city limits.  Not that it had a chance to work anyway but it was quite hilarious to see that female police officer arrested because she used her position as a cop to supply her gang member boyfriend with handguns.

This is why I really can't trust anything to come out of Chicago, Obama included.  You live around the area you quickly learn there isn't a single goddam person in a position of power in Chicago that isn't corrupt.

Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.

Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Its politics really are corrupt, but at least most of its people aren't. I find them to be more well- down to earth than LA or NYC.

GameSnooper

Re: What the CTA Ad Ban Has to Say About Violent Video Games

Nope, they can't do that. It makes too much sense and doesn't get enough votes, so instead, they're going to keep removing things kids have to do so there is nothing to do but cause trouble.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenOoo, this one came down to the wire! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/749082525/nefarious09/19/2014 - 1:03am
Andrew EisenI don't doubt that many are truly interested in journalistic integrity. The problem I'm often seeing is they seem to have no idea how or where to talk about it.09/18/2014 - 11:46pm
Andrew EisenDidn't word that well. Busy at work. I've seen people claim that GamerGate is solely about ethics and transparency in games journalism and then go on to show that what they're really after is silencing those who talk about gender issues in games.09/18/2014 - 11:45pm
Kronodebate. Becaus apparently people who only post on Reddit are supposed to police twitter before they're allowed to question anything about the people involved.09/18/2014 - 10:40pm
KronoI highly doubt many, if any are using journalistic integrity as a cover for harassment. The people harassing are essentially trolls. They aren't interested in subtle. More often it's othe other way around. People use "but X is being harassed" to shut down09/18/2014 - 10:38pm
Andrew EisenAnd exacerbating everything is the fact that all the cries of ethics violations have been obnoxious and easily proven false.09/18/2014 - 8:59pm
Andrew EisenProblem is, I would imagine, the sheer number of people who are using journalistic integrity as a cover for their harassing actions or only bringing it up on the false pretense of journalistic integrity.09/18/2014 - 8:47pm
Andrew EisenHaving said that, I can certainly see how one would be frustrated if they truly just wanted to talk about journalistic integrity and someone said they were one of the people harassing Sarkeesian, Quinn and others (though I've seen no examples of that).09/18/2014 - 8:44pm
KronoThat's been the common refrain, that talk of journalism ethics is just an excuse to harass people.09/18/2014 - 8:44pm
KronoLines like "like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion." are taring everyone questioning the ethics as a harasser.09/18/2014 - 8:43pm
Andrew EisenKrono - Except, none of the articles were talking about gamers complaining about journalist ethics, let alone called them white male misogynists. They were talking about the gamers who were harassing others.09/18/2014 - 8:36pm
Kronomakes plenty of sense. It's rather hard to dismiss someone as a white guy running a sock puppet when they've posted proof they're a woman, or black, or another minority.09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronothat any critics of journalists were white guys that hated women, and could be dismissed as such. It seems to have helped some. It's kind of difficult to maintain the white guy narrative in the face of a bunch of women and non-white guys. So the tag09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronothat, someone vented on a #gamergate 4chan thread about being dismissed like that. The suggestion they got in return was to organize their own hashtag in response, with #NotYourShield being suggested. Thus the tag came into use to combat the undercurrent09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronomuch more general problem. And while several of the articles were fairly tame, they spured a bunch of people to dismiss any critics of the journalism involved as misogynistic men. Usually with insults aimed at the geek stereotype. After about a week of09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - Not sure what that has to do with anything but yeah, the gender percentages differ depending on how the study defines what a gamer is.09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
KronoThe rhetoric pushed by the spearheading articles that the "gamers" complaining about journalist ethics were just angry white male misogynists, insulted a lot of people that were previously fairly neutral. It made it go from a Kotaku problem, to a09/18/2014 - 8:31pm
Krono@Andrew I'm not surprised overlap exists. I expect much of it is a rush to jump on the bandwagon, either by reporting on the original articles, or rushing out their own. The point is that was a major flashpoint, much bigger than the reddit mass deletion.09/18/2014 - 8:31pm
Sleaker@AE - well the gamer trend was described with stats on Factual Femenist. Only 1 in 7 males plays games 20+ hrs going into college vs 1 in 40 females. So gaming is definitely still male dominated despite fake stats trying to say otherwise.09/18/2014 - 8:30pm
Craig R.Do conspiracies ever make sense? The fact that people are now having to defend themselves against nutjob websites like Breitbart.com shows how far down into the rabbit hole we've all been forcibly dragged.09/18/2014 - 7:05pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician