Green Bay Press Gazette columnist Leonard Pitts has authored an open letter to Cuba in response to that country’s outrage over a mission to assassinate Fidel Castro in the recently-released Activision game Call of Duty: Black Ops.

Pitts tells Cuba that there’s “virtually nothing” that can be done about the game and calls a claim by state news agency Cubadebate that the game “stimulates sociopathic attitudes in North American children and adolescents,” “naïve, at best” and “hysterical at worst.”

Pitts does have some empathy however:

In light of the Cuban government’s dissatisfaction with a mission in Call of Duty: Black Ops that has players attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro, the Washington D.C.-based Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ) has called for a boycott of the game.

Noting that Wal-Mart, Best Buy and “dozens of other retailers in your community are today dealing this pornography to the children in your community,” AFGJ called Black Ops “part of the whole culture of US militarism with the entertainment industry’s role being to desensitize us to violence.”

Research conducted by Germany’s Criminology Research Institute appears to link a negative correlation between a student’s time spent on media consumption and their grades.

Using a cross-sectional survey of 5,5529 fourth grade students and a longitudinal panel study with 1,157 primary schoolchildren, researchers claimed that, “…the more time students spend on consuming media and the more violent its contents are, the worse are their marks at school…”

The study also stated that boys, particularly, were at “risk of showing poor school performance,” given their propensity for possessing media devices, having “extensive media usage times” and strongly prefering violent media content.

A new Rasmussen poll of Americans on the subject of violent videogames found that 54 percent of those polled believed that violent games lead to more violence in society.

The latest survey of 1,000 adults took place on November 8-9 and that 54 percent number held steady from a similar poll conducted in April of this year. In response to the question “How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?” 69 percent indicated they were at least somewhat concerned, while 48 percent were “very concerned.”

A discussion between two writers on the Perpetual Post website caught our eye because one of the scribes, even while expressing an aversion to violent videogames, doesn’t think the government should be in the business of limiting a child’s access to them.

In her part of the article, Molly Schoemann says that she “can’t really stomach violence of any kind—even videogame violence,” and recounted a previous experience playing Army of Two in which she was reduced to being “huddled in a pile of rubble,” where she “refused to shoot anyone.”

A mission in the newly released Call of Duty: Black Ops that has players attempting to assassinate a young Fidel Castro has caused the Cuban government, or at least its mouthpiece, to denounce the game.

The latest ad for Call of Duty: Black Ops, which features "common" people plugged into violent, war-based scenarios, is a little too realistic for one Atlantic columnist.

The ad in question is designed to allude to the interactivity of Black Ops and shows a young girl, a hotel concierge and other various people with normal jobs blasting away at unseen enemies with rocket launchers, shotguns and other weaponry. NBA star Kobe Bryant and late night host Jimmy Kimmel also make an appearance, before a tagline offers “There’s a Soldier in All of Us.”

The Charlotte Observer offers a regular feature called Young Voices, that polls the youth of the wonderful North Carolina city on the hot button issues of the day. The latest column asks teens age 14 - 18 if violent videogames should be sold or prohibited from people under the age of 18. The answers may surprise you. Some kids think that it's okay for kids to play mature-rated games, others think they should have to wait until they are 18, and some think it is up to the parents.

First here is the question that was asked of these young people:

Q. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether selling violent video games to anyone under age 18 should be prohibited by law. What do you think? Should persons younger than 18 have the right to buy video games? Why or why not? Should restricted such access be left up to parents and not the law?

Now here are some of the answers:

In an interview with the BBC, Epic Games' Cliff Bleszinski says that his company does not implement graphic violence because they are “strange sadistic people." Rather, he sees the violence in the company's mature-rated games as "cartoon-like" much like the classic Looney Tunes cartoons. Instead of anvils and dynamite, gamers use Lancer assault rifles and grenades.

"The majority of what we implement into the game we do for feedback and interactivity, not because we're strange sadistic people who want to see how much blood we can put on the screen when you shoot one of the lizard creatures,” Bleszinski told the BBC’s Interview program.

"We do it to let the player know you did in fact succeed, that you are hitting a target and you need that kind of feedback in order to create what is a successful interactive experience," he said.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show served up a segment last night offering correspondent John Hodgman’s take on the Supreme Court, Schwarzenegger vs. EMA and banning the sale of violent games to minors in California.

Hodgman, when asked by host Jon Stewart if the Supreme Court should ban violent videogames for children, responded, “No, that’s absurd John.”

He continued, tongue firmly in cheek, “Videogames are a form of expression. They are the novels of the next-generation."

In advance of yesterday’s oral arguments for Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the First Amendment Center polled over 1,000 adults for their opinion on where responsibility should fall when it comes to deciding whether kids should be able to buy or rent violent videogames.

86 percent of the respondents indicated that a “great deal” of the burden for such choices should fall on parents, while 43 percent indicated that videogame manufacturers and retailers should carry a “great deal” of the responsibility. Only 28 percent thought the government should wield a “great deal” of influence over such decisions.

On the flip side however, 68 percent of those polled said that “yes, the government should be able to prevent the sales or rentals of violent videogames to children under 18.” Only 31 percent said that the government should not be involved in such a policy.

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.”

A psychology student at Canada’s Brock University has undertaken a study on the relation between videogames and aggression, but his research seeks to examine whether other elements of games, rather than violence only, can lead to increased hostility.

26-year old Paul Adachi, as part of his push for a PhD, has already experimented on 50 students between the ages of 17 and 19. His plan, as detailed by the Standard, involves having subjects play two games—one non-violent (the racing game Fuel) and one violent (the action-adventure title Conan)—while attempting to determine if a game’s level of competiveness, difficulty and pace of play contributed to a rising level of aggression.

Students at the California Western School of Law (CWSL) staged a simulation of the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case last week and ultimately, issued a ruling in favor of the game industry.

CWSL Professor Glenn Smith, organizer of the event (pictured), discussed with GamePolitics the unique approach he and his students adapted for the simulation—each student assigned to play the role of a Supreme Court Justice conducted “substantial research” into a particular judge’s past case decisions, writings and speeches in order to more effectively immerse themselves into the role.

While it may be difficult to imagine a Supreme Court Justice picking up a controller for a jaunt through Postal II, during the course of actions surrounding Schwarzenegger vs. EMA such a scenario is not totally out of the realm of possibility, at least according to the lawyer who will present the videogame industry’s side in front of the nation’s highest court next week.

In a story on the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case appearing on the American Bar Association’s (ABA) website, it was noted that California submitted a DVD to the Supreme Court that featured five minutes of violent videogame footage, with the hopes that such footage would bolster its case. The game industry chose to submit a DVD with a “more diverse array of action,” including scenes from titles like Medal of Honor and Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six.

A Vancouver high school student was assaulted by a group of people on Monday, all because the victim and his friends reportedly trash talked opponents after a victorious WarCraft III skirmish.

The student in question was roughed up at Eric Hamber secondary school during lunch hour. The Vancouver Sun reported that the beating came following a WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos online battle in a Defense of the Ancients custom scenario, after which the winning team mocked the losers.

“Four or five assailants,” described as in their late teens, tracked the boy to Eric Hamber, and “made him kiss their feet before hitting him with batons, breaking his fingers.” No arrests have been made yet, though Vancouver’s police youth squad continues to investigate the assault.

After dancing around the question of whether tattoos are okay for Christians, marriage and family therapist Dr. Linda Mintle (pictured) turned her attention to the subject of violent videogames.

On the CBN website, a “preteen” stated that “My mom and dad don’t want me to play violent video games,” and asked the doctor “What’s the big deal?”

Mintle, who is also Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, before responding with a laundry list of maladies she attributed to playing violent games, said that the “big deal” is that playing such games can lead to aggression and “increase delinquency.”

Among her claims:

Results from a new study seem to indicate that teenagers brains reacted less emotionally the more they were exposed to violence, but another researcher has thrown some cold water on the results.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) performed its study by using an MRI brain scanner and electrodes on 22 boys between the ages of 14-17, according to Live Science. The subjects were asked to press one of two response buttons while watching a series of violent videos in order to rate the current video as either more or less aggressive than the previous one.

It was reported that:

Two unnamed gamers oppose the opinions of research experts in a BBC story examining the impact, if any, violent games have on players, but the roles are probably reversed from what you might expect.

The academic types, which included Dr. Cheryl Olson and Villanova University Professor Dr. Patrick Markey defended games, with Olson, co-author of Grand Theft Childhood, saying “Given that the typical young teenage boy plays violent games, and that the youth crime rate has gone down rather than up, it makes sense that these games are meeting needs.”

Markey referenced his previously published research, which indicated that only people who are already angry typically fall under the negative spell of violent games, or, as he told the BBC, “Those who are negatively affected have pre-existing dispositions, which make them susceptible to such violent media.”

Psychologist Dr. John Ryder had the strongest condemnation of any link between violent games and hostile behavior, stating, “Usually violence begets violence, not watching it on TV or play-acting in a video game.”

The decision by Utah Attorney-General Mark Shurtleff to support the game industry side of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA has made him a target in the Beehive State.

The latest person to bash Shurtleff is the failed politician, and Utah’s “common sense conservative” Cherilyn Eagar. Eagar, who was running for Senator in the state as a Republican—and against Shurtleff, before he withdrew from the race—but did not make the final run-off, took to her blog to bash Shurtleff’s decision to oppose the California law.

In the article, entitled “Children Must be Protected from Video Games,” Eagar writes that Shurtleff’s rationale in backing of the game industry could be adapted in order to “logically argue that it is free speech to allow minors to purchase cigarettes or drugs.”

Over the past month, the “pro-family” Eagle Forum attempted (and failed) to lobby Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff into supporting the California side of Schwarzenegger v. EMA, while its founder, Phyllis Schlafly, scribbled out a withering column on the “evil products” and “highly disturbing”  content emerging from the videogame industry. Now another Eagle Forum member is attempting to pin the group’s anti-videogame stance on protecting children.

Last month we told you that the Institute of Bill of Rights Law (IBRL) at William & Mary Law School would offer a mock trial of the Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, which is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court on November 2.  Well, the Moot Court held its version of the event over the weekend, and gamers will have to hope that the result does not foreshadow the verdict that SCOTUS eventually returns.

The mock trial included participants such as USA Today’s Joan Biskupic, The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin, the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, University of California, Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemrinsky, Jeffrey Sutton from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and U.S. Department of Justice Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkman.

The research of Iowa State University psychology professors Craig Anderson (pictured, left) and Douglas Gentile (pictured, right), in addition to Rob West and ex-ISU professor Brad Bushman, makes up the bulk of the argument for the California side of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA in the amicus brief (PDF) filed by State Senator Leland Yee earlier this year.

Yee’s brief referenced nine studies from the ISU researchers, while Anderson, Gentile and Bushman also helped in authoring the brief’s Statement on Video Game Violence. Nevertheless, Gentile and Anderson, in an ISU press release trumpeting the pair's achievements, wanted to emphasize that while they contributed scientific “evidence,” they do not necessarily endorse the California law.

The courting of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (pictured) by both sides in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA  U.S. Supreme Court case ended with him signing onto an amicus brief supporting the game industry, where he was joined by fellow attorneys general from Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and Washington.

A disjointed op-ed in Utah’s Standard-Examiner praised Shurtleff’s decision, yet still managed to take some pot shots at the game industry.

Shurtleff stated that he backed the game industry because he was “convinced” that the First Amendment protects games, a point agreed with in the op-ed:

Is it right for the government to freeze speech -- in this case the video games -- because some people are offended by the violence? The answer is no.

In delivering a presentation on the threats modern media poses to youngsters, a retired Maine police officer said about the entertainment industry, “They don’t care what happens to your child.”

Dan Frazell (pictured) now travels extensively giving similar presentations on the subject of “How the Media is Killing Our Children,” which is also the MIA-like URL of his personal website. According to the Chronicle Herald, Frazell uses his talks to warn about the perils (for kids) of social media sites like Facebook and MySpace, lists websites that show users how to beat drug tests or evade police searches and shows sexually-charged and/or violent scenes from shows like South Park and various music videos.

Results from a recent study appear to indicate that playing violent videogames could increase aggression a full day later, but only when certain conditions were instituted.

“Violent Video Games Cause an Increase in Aggression Long After the Game Has Been Turned Off” (link) was authored by Brad Bushman and Bryan Gibson, the former a professor at Ohio State University and Amsterdam’s VU University and the latter a professor at Central Michigan University. The study was conducted on 126 college students.

The flip of a coin decided whether participants would play a violent or nonviolent game for 20 minutes. The violent games were Mortal Kombat: vs. DC Universe, Resistance: Fall of Man, and Resident Evil 5, while Guitar Hero, Gran Turismo 5, and Shaun White Snowboarding made up the nonviolent entries.

Update: id Software has filed an amicus brief (PDF) and the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has joined  nine other states that are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the California law. Thanks to all our Shoutbox users (PHX Corp, BearDogg-X, etc.,) for their help today.

Original story: Those supporting the state of California’s attempt to legislate the sale of violent video games to minors got an early start and submitted their amicus briefs on July 19th. Perhaps a bit disconcerting for gamers, those briefs sat unopposed for nearly two months.

But hey, better late than never as today the video game industry saw a flurry of support from all over the country as various people and organizations rushed to meet today’s submission deadline. We’re still waiting for the ECA’s long expected amicus brief but in the meantime, let’s tally up the scores and see which side can brag the most support.

Today is the deadline to file "friend of the court" amicus briefs in the California violent games case going before the U.S. Supreme Court in early November. Some heavy hitters have shown up on both sides of the issue.

On the side of gamers, we have the Motion Picture Association of America, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and a host of publishers, artists and advertisers. More are expected to be filed before the end of business today, including a brief from the Entertainment Consumers Association.

The MPAA brief was joined by AFTRA, SAG, the Directors Guild of America and several other entertainment organizations, and stated in part:

Los Angeles TV station Fox LA 11 recently did a segment on California's law on violent video games featuring a debate between Gerry Block (IGN and G4TV contributor) and Michele MacNeal, Director of the California Chapter of the Parents Television Council.

While the debate is fairly tame and both participants are clearly nervous about being on TV, the "video game guy" does a good job of being articulate. Check out the video and judge for yourselves.

Source: Fox LA

Montreal police will not charge the creator of a game that uses the September 2006 shooting at Dawson College that left one dead and 19 injured. Police said that they could not charge the 23-year-old Ontario man who goes by the name "Virtuaman" because no one could accuse him of an actual crime.

His crime, according to some who were deeply offended by the game, was recreating killer Anastasia DeSousa’s violent rampage. While the Montreal police department has asked for the game to be removed because it is not "socially sensitive or moral," the creator has no obligation to do so.

The game, a simple top-down action game called Dawson College Massacre, was released on September 8. It is available on Newgrounds.com now. Despite the complaints, Newgrounds has not taken the game down.