Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

October 29, 2010 -

A pair of opposing editorials appear on the USA Today website, delivering two distinct takes on Schwarzenegger vs EMA.

Common Sense Media CEO James Steyer penned a piece opposing the game industry, stating that the showdown “pits the profits of a multibillion dollar video game industry against the best interests of kids.”

Steyer, whose organization backed California with an amicus brief of its own (PDF), went on to cite American Academy of Pediatrics research to back his choice of sides, research which “declared the connection between game violence and aggression nearly as strong as the medical association between cigarettes and lung cancer.”

Steyer appears to be referencing an old study (PDF) by the University of Michigan’s Brad Bushman and Iowa State’s Craig Anderson, a study that Texas A&M International researcher Christopher Ferguson subsequently picked apart (PDF).

Saying that Common Sense Media preaches “sanity, not censorship,” Steyer stated, “We simply believe that parents, not retailers, should decide which games are appropriate for their kids to purchase and play. That's exactly what the California law would ensure.”

He continued:

If parents decide a violent game is OK for their kids, that's one thing. But kids can't judge the impact of violence on their lives. This law is a common sense solution that puts a parent or adult in charge of the decision-making process, instead of an industry just protecting its profits.

On the flip side, USA Today itself chose to back the game industry, citing constitutional concerns, subjective language in the law and scant, perhaps even non-existent, research that establishes a link between violent games and juvenile problems.

USA Today summed up its position:

Guarding the First Amendment often means protecting the right of people to say or do things that most Americans find repulsive, such as Nazis marching in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Ill. But the alternative is to arbitrarily pick and choose who's entitled to free expression and who isn't. In that world, anyone might be deprived of rights reserved for individuals since the nation's founding.


Pic from icanhascheezburger

Comments

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

Ok so I come on this site from time to time now.....reading on what's going on in the game industry, now that I'm busier in my life than ever & so I HAD to comment on this.

If parents decide a violent game is OK for their kids, that's one thing. But kids can't judge the impact of violence on their lives. This law is a common sense solution that puts a parent or adult in charge of the decision-making process, instead of an industry just protecting its profits.

This doesn't make sense......b/c parents already choose or don't care what is right or wrong for their kids. But yet this sounds like the law will make/have parents choose for their kids?! That doesn't make sense to me. To me it's just wasteful spending. The industry is protecting it's profits but the gamestops I go into do check the ID's & no kids can't get the M rated games. Idk about other gaming places like Blockbuster or Wal-Mart or other retailers selling games....

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

I do not thinking makeing bad law or makeing law bad protects anyone one.

Its simple IMO if you are going to regulate it(and thats all sold over the counter media) do it the same as tobaco, same rules same level of fines,ect. If not then do not do it at all.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

the showdown “pits the profits of a multibillion dollar video game industry against the best interests of kids.”

Ugh. Why are they still re-iterating this same logical fallacy?

We all know this isn't true, because A. The industry has implemented measures to protect kids, and B. their profits are coming form the vast majority of adults who play these games.

I think it's time they found a new non-argument.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

Not to mention that every time there's a scandal about violent games, it hurts their reputation and (at least potentially) their bottom line.  While I agree that their primary motivation is profit, they've come around to the fact that the best way to protect their profits is to apply ratings well and do their best to make sure they're understood and enforced.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

USA Today easily won that duel as James Steyer continues to prove that his worthless group is no different than the Parent Trash Cult as he lied throughout his little opinion piece.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

...the showdown “pits the profits of a multibillion dollar video game industry against the best interests of kids.”

I don't see how considering the overwhelming majority of the time, it's not the kids buying the games.

...research which “declared the connection between game violence and aggression nearly as strong as the medical association between cigarettes and lung cancer."

Even if that were true, so what?  No, seriously, so what?

“We simply believe that parents, not retailers, should decide which games are appropriate for their kids to purchase and play."

I take it you think parents are, by and large, far too incompetent to do so without government assistance?

"If parents decide a violent game is OK for their kids, that's one thing."

See, I've never understood this.  If these games are so harmful to children, why are you and your ilk absolutely fine with Mom and Dad allowing them to play such titles?  Why the big to do over the point of sale?  Surely, it's the play, not the purchase that's harmful to minors?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

"I take it you think parents are, by and large, far too incompetent to do so without government assistance?"

I'm sure many of them are, but that's irrelevant.  Unless the parents are actually harming a child, the government has no right to intervene.  (And even then, parents are allowed to do things like deny their children vaccinations -- so long as they don't send them to public school.)

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

Agreed.

Further, I don't see why the gov't has any interest in interfering.  Oh sure, it has a compelling interest in preserving the psychological well being of children but absent any evidence of harm, it just looks like ulterior motive land from where I sit.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

it just looks like ulterior motive land from where I sit.

I'm strongly compelled to question why you're not saying it is. I don't know if you're thinking it, but I'm of the opinion that the only reason it's being pursued in the first place is strictly for political gain. It looks good when you can put "fought to protect children" in a political resume, since it isn't a lie- and at the same time, you don't have to say "using taxpayer money to fund unconstitutional laws and appeals going all the way to the Supreme Court".


I'm actually a bit glad for USA Today- they make it clear that they find content in some video games objectional, but at the same time acknowledge the repurcussions of this cases in a negative outcome.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

The government doesn't... Politicians do so that they can manipulate the ignorant majority into letting them keep their jobs.

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

Essentially Yee is more concerned abotu appealing to the moral crusaders and keeping his seat than he is in actually helping anyone.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

“pits the profits of a multibillion dollar video game industry against the best interests of kids.”
 

Facepalm at this. You can accuse McDonalds of the same for selling crap to children, but I believe junk food is not as spicy as videogames, isn´t?

Steyer, whose organization backed California with an amicus brief of its own, went on to cite American Academy of Pediatrics research to back his choice of sides, research which “declared the connection between game violence and aggression nearly as strong as the medical association between cigarettes and lung cancer.”

Those people shouldn´t be doctors.

“sanity, not censorship,” “We simply believe that parents, not retailers, should decide which games are appropriate for their kids to purchase and play

Being a parent doesn´t give you the right to decide what is sanity or what isn´t. And this is all about censorship. It doesn´t matter how cute you want to dress it.

If parents decide a violent game is OK for their kids, that's one thing. But kids can't judge the impact of violence on their lives. This law is a common sense solution that puts a parent or adult in charge of the decision-making process, instead of an industry just protecting its profits.

What the law basically says is that parents are not responsable of what are their children doing if they play some sort of media that the government doesn´t approve. If there is a real problem with children and violent games as they claim it exists, then the law by itself won´t do anything for nobody.

 

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

"Those people shouldn´t be doctors."

Depends on whether that's their analogy or not.

Obviously comparing aggression to cancer is absurd -- the link between aggression and violence is itself overstated.

However, if they simply produced studies -- reliable ones -- showing a correlation between game violence and aggression, and CSM came up with the cancer analogy, then I wouldn't blame the doctors.

I'm still looking forward to additional studies that isolate variables more effectively -- there was a story Wednesday about a study seeking to determine whether competitive games produce the same results as violent ones.  (Anecdotally, I think they do -- as I say in the comments of that article, I've certainly gotten aggressive playing Worms.  But never violent!)

And of course one of my all-time favorite GP articles is an oldie but goodie from 2007 about a study showing a link between violent Bible passages and aggression.

Re: Dueling Opinions on Schwarzenegger vs EMA in USA Today

I´ve been looking for those studies on the PDF file, and as always those studies are the same old song about agression, low school performance and even get on discussions with teachers. As you said, it looks like the analogy came from the CMS spokeperson instead from the doctors.

 

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

 
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.
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician