Yesterday's Senate hearing on the future of violent games attempted to separate the thorny issues of First Amendment Rights and the protection of children against inappropriate content. Here are the main points...

Quote: Originally Posted by NextGeneration The hearing is titled, 'What's in a Game? Regulation of Violent Video Games and the First Amendment' and has been introduced by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), co-sponsor of a bill seeking a scientific enquiry into the effects of games on kids. Witnesses included Steve Strickland, whose police officer brother was gunned down by GTA player in Alabama last year. He said, "A game such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City could and did teach [the killer] how to do this [murder]." Leading psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Carll said, "Games may have a negative impact on children," and called for more research, thus backing the bill. Dr. David Bickham, a research scientist on children and the media added, "There are reasons to believe that the influences of violent videogames are stronger than those of other forms of screen violence." Holding the fort for the game industry was ESRB head Patricia Vance. She said, "The self-regulatory ESRB system offers a valuable, reliable and credible tool to make the right video game choices for their families." She then offered a detailed and impressive insight into the ESRB's work and the sophistication of the testing system. She used the Hot Coffee scandal as a positive, pointing towards the game's re-rating and disappearance from shelves once the offending content came to light, "No other industry has a self-regulatory system willing or capable of imposing such sweeping sanctions on its own members," she said. Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) lawyer Paul Smith talked about his work overturning State laws restricting the sale of games, "These games frequently involve familiar themes such as good versus evil, triumph over adversity, and struggle against corrupt powers," he said. He added, "The courts have rejected the argument that restrictions on violent videogames can be justified as a means to prevent psychological harm to minors. The Supreme Court has said that the government cannot suppress minors' speech "solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them." Meanwhile, the FTC released the results of a secret shopper survey of game retailers in which 42 percent children between the ages of 13 and 16 managed to buy M-rated games. The good news is that this figure is down by one, which is down 27 percent from 2003. The figure for large retail chains was only 35 percent. The Video Software Dealers Association issued a statement from president Crossan Anderson, "The VSDA opposes the enactment of laws restricting minors’ access to motion pictures and videogames based on the depictions of violence in them because we are committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of retailers and their customers. The association’s advocacy is not driven by abstract legal theories or economic calculations." It added, "Games and other forms of entertainment can educate, amuse, inspire, challenge, and bring people together and that society is invigorated if individuals and families can decide for themselves, without the interference of government, what they shall see, read, hear, and play." Article link at NextGen

Quote: Witnesses included Steve Strickland, whose police officer brother was gunned down by GTA player in Alabama last year. He said, "A game such as Grand Theft Auto: Vice City could and did teach [the killer] how to do this [murder]."

The above statement is what pisses me off...I can use the same argument the NRA uses to defend its self and its members rights to hold arms. People kill people, games don't kill people.

Of course, I guess that all the realistic depictions of murders and killings in movies, television shows, books, comics, etc... didn't play a part in any way in helping this kid learn how to kill someone.

Also, it couldn't be that the cop died because he was a cop! He was doing his job. He, and every other officer, knows the risks they take when they put on that badge and patrol our streets. It's a horrible risk that they all must acknowledge. You can die on duty as a police officer. Its happened for THOUSANDS of years, and will continue to happen.

I grieve for these officers who die in the line of duty. It takes a special person to lay down their life in the name of the law. But, I also know that they took up that honor knowing its consequences.