Check Out Video of Last Night's Violent Videogames Debate

[vansau]

Check Out Video of Last Night's Violent Videogames Debate

[livestream clip=pla_d70a512f-d476-401a-8c99-66d15f38aab7 channel=commonwealthclub]​

Last night's debate featured some big names talking about whether or not games should be subject to legislation, and now you can watch the entire thing.

Last night in San Francisco, the Commonwealth Club hosted a debate about violent videogames. On one side was George Rose, Executive VP and Chief Public Policy Officer for Activision Blizzard, while James Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, sat on the other. Law professor Michael W. McConnell was also on the panel, providing legal expertise. John Diaz, an editorial page editor for the San Francisco Chroncle, served as a moderator for the debate.

Steyer was actually a <a href=http://gamepolitics.com/2011/03/17/yee-replaced-common-sense-media-ceo-commonwealth-club-event>last-minute substitute for Leland Yee, the California State Senator who penned the <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech>controversial law about violent videogames that was recently debated in front of the Supreme Court. Yee (presumably) had to be replaced because of the California budget debate that took place yesterday, but Steyer seems like a decent substitute to argue against violent videogames, which have often been maligned by Common Sense Media.

The debate itself is actually rather interesting to watch, as everybody comes across as fairly reasonable while they talk (though you may not agree with every point mentioned). One of the most interesting points, though, was that absolutely nobody on the panel thought that the Supreme Court would side with the 2005 legislation that Yee had authored.

Source: <a href=http://gamepolitics.com/2011/03/18/commonwealth-club-video-game-debate-footage>GamePolitics

Permalink

 

[DazBurger]

Oh my... They talk so slowly... So monotone... Can't keep... Awake.. Eyes closing...

ghbyhihiulhiukhiukj

*zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzz*

 

[InfiniteJacuzzi]

They should get Jack Thompson in on this. He can just blackmail the Supreme Court.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

 

[Matt_LRR]

I am hardcore on the side of the games industry in this debate, but I'm not sure the fellow from activision was a wise choice to represent the industry. He's being a little more arrogant and dismissive than I like, and not nearly as well organized and clear in what he's saying as the guy from CSM.

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

-m

 

[Snotnarok]

I grew up with violent mediums, never got the censored version and I'm far from violent. And despite the amount of shooters I have, I don't have a gun nor do I have an interest in one.

Now going by the video, am I the exception, or am I with the majority here and these 'facts' are skewed.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I am hardcore on the side of the games industry in this debate, but I'm not sure the fellow from activision was a wise choice to represent the industry. He's being a little more arrogant and dismissive than I like, and not nearly as well organized and clear in what he's saying as the guy from CSM.

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

-m

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

 

[GiantRaven]

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

I'm fairly sure it's the law here in the UK. I don't the problem with requiring ID myself.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Right, so it's not about the law as such, it's the infringement of constitutional rights and trying to show that games should not be treated any differently. Makes sense now.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

Because one of the most fundamental rights afforded to americans is the ability to publish material for public consumption without infringement, and making sales to kids illegal counts as infringement on that right.

-m

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

This is why it was interesting to get the viewpoint of someone who has actually been involved in constitutional law as McConnell has. If a Federal Judge who was almost a nominee to the supreme court is presenting an argument, you can bet the Supreme Court Justices have the same argument in front of them. Gives some impression of the arguments they will be deciding the case upon.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I grew up playing Duke Nukem/Quake and listening to punk/metal music. I'm not violent at all. But, at the same time, I don't see a problem with requiring an ID or parent to buy an M rated game. I should be the parent's responsibility either way, and with this, the parents will be more responsible than the retailer.

 

[sunburst]

My biggest problem with the law is that it applies only to video games. Moral groups have tried this on books, movies and television in the past. Those attempts were all struck down as being a violation of freedom of speech. If that does not apply to games, they will no longer be covered. Ignoring the issue of who decides what counts as "deviant violence," making an exception to free speech for a single medium is unacceptable. While I wouldn't necessarily support it, I would be less vehemently opposed to legislation that imposed equal regulation on all forms of media.

I wonder what evil our children will need protecting from next. Books, movies, comics, TV, rock music, RPGs and cheesing have had their turn. Gaming is on the chopping block right now and social networking has taken some licks as well. I think musicals have had it easy for too long. West Side Story includes gang violence and murder. And I don't even know what's going on in Cats but I'm fairly certain it's obscene.

 

[spartan231490]

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

That's not a legal thing, it's a part of the industry, just like movies. It isn't illegal to sell a M-rated video game to a child, it's just against industry policies. This guy wants to make a legal distinction, which is a big difference, and would accomplish nothing, except maybe setting a bad precedent for the gov't being in charge of what types of media you can and cannot sell.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

ok the main problem isnt the games themselves, its the parents for letting their children play games that MAY have an adverse effect on SOME childrens social behaviour.

if you are a parent, its your responsibility to 'call the shots'. deal with it.

also, if your going to quote me and then call me a moron, at least do it with real reason, not just for the sake of it...

 

[spartan231490]

I grew up with violent mediums, never got the censored version and I'm far from violent. And despite the amount of shooters I have, I don't have a gun nor do I have an interest in one.

Now going by the video, am I the exception, or am I with the majority here and these 'facts' are skewed.

The facts are skewed, and there are just as many statistics which say the opposite, as there are that agree with what was said. The problem is that they don't study the causality, only the correlation, and several others depending on the individual study.

 

[Digital_Hero]

Edit: To anyone who's not up to speed on american constitutional law, this fight isn't going to make sense - but it's a very important fight in terms of the recognition of games as a legitimate form of expression.

Ah damn, that just killed my entire post.

But one thing still doesn't make sense to me, why not take this up with the guys who sell the games, and not make them? But something has to be wrong with that idea, these guys would have jumped to that if it were the case..

 

[spartan231490]

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

I'm fairly sure it's the law here in the UK. I don't the problem with requiring ID myself.

I am hardcore on the side of the games industry in this debate, but I'm not sure the fellow from activision was a wise choice to represent the industry. He's being a little more arrogant and dismissive than I like, and not nearly as well organized and clear in what he's saying as the guy from CSM.

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

the problem is that it's not LAW that you need an ID or parent to do so, it's merely industry policy, and opponents of videogames seem to think that's not good enough.

-m

Here in Australia it's the law and things have worked out fine besides our R18+ debacles. Why don't you just make the ESRB legally enforceable? I don't understand why everyone cares that much. If they want to make it the law that if a child wants a game above their age bracket their parent has to buy it that makes perfect sense. I really don't understand the opposition on this issue. What could possibly go wrong if it's worked fine over here for years?

The problem is that our constitution tries to limit the power of the government to influence our daily lives, because doing so restricts our rights. Many of us still believe in our rights, and are willing to fight for them through whatever legal channels we can. It might not make sense, but it's related to the whole: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing. Our nation was founded on the belief that if the government had too much power, it would abuse it, which is the motivation behind separation of powers, and in fact much of the constitution.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Wait don't you need an ID or parent to buy an M rated game? Whats the problem?

That's not a legal thing, it's a part of the industry, just like movies. It isn't illegal to sell a M-rated video game to a child, it's just against industry policies. This guy wants to make a legal distinction, which is a big difference, and would accomplish nothing, except maybe setting a bad precedent for the gov't being in charge of what types of media you can and cannot sell.

Well, seems I may need to break out the tin foil hats...