« The bad publicity growth plan | Main | It's official: Apple does Windows »
April 05, 2006
Some common sense about games and violence
We direct the attention of our zealous censors - those bright sparks who established a new precedent by banning a graffiti game on the grounds that it might infect our young Aussies with an uncontrollable urge to grab spray cans and cover every available space with their, umm, art - to a judgment by US District Court Judge George Caram Steeh in the matter of the Entertainment Software Association (et al.) vs the State of Michigan over a law banning the sale of video games to minors.
Judge Steeh observed, among other things, that in the absence of evidence to support claims that video games are somehow worse than other media, because they allow players to control the amount of violence, rather than passively watch it, "it could just as easily be said that the interactive element in video games acts as an outlet for minors to vent their violent or aggressive behavior, thereby diminishing the chance they would actually perform such acts in reality."
He also described the position of medical associations that video games have a negative impact on minors as lacking any scientific justification, and merely representing the policy or political views of their governing bodies.
It's fascinating to put that judgment against the wisdom of our censors, who, on the convenor's casting vote, decided that Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, was in fact a training simulator for street artists, and a free ad for Montana Gold paint. We'd love to know which of the other members voted for the ban. We note, for instance, that Anthony Hetrih, the 35-year-old father of a young child, has "a background in marketing and communications, holds a Bachelor of Education, majoring in design and has a demonstrated and long-standing professional interest in the effects of computer games on children". He "is currently researching for a guidebook for parents on the subject of computer games". We rang him and asked his view on the US decision. He wouldn't comment. We asked him to contrast it to the local decision. He wouldn't comment. We asked him what his general view was on violence in computer games. He wouldn't comment. He wouldn't comment on anything because he said it might affect his ability to sit in on any deliberations on computer games. But he's ringing the convenor, just in case there is something he can say. Given that he's claimed to be an expert on the topic - on the strength of reviewing a lot of games for magazines - we'd like to know more about his expertise.
Posted by cw at April 5, 2006 10:45 AM
Comments
Hmmmm... another blog writer with a possible case of speculation and finger-pointing. *Yawn* Read it all before elsewhere. So what if they all voted for the refusal of classification? You're missing the point.
CW: And the point [YAWN] is?
Posted by: Miasma at April 5, 2006 03:12 PM
The point is we can steal cars and kill pedestrians, but not "tag". Clowns!!
cheers, Paul
Posted by: Paul at April 9, 2006 03:18 PM