Joe Lieberman On Video Games And Censorship

An AC sends: "I found this interesting interview at http://www.dailyradar.com/news/game_news_5142.html. It gives a more thorough look into Joseph Lieberman's position on video game violence and censorship than the standard opinion that he is very conservative on the issue and can be construed as anti First Amendment." Censor violence or censor porn... decisions, decisions.

What I got from the article...

[jfrisby]

Between this and his previous comments, the impression I get is that he's saying "censor yourself, or be censored."

Remember kiddies: The advancement of society comes from struggle and strife. The most offensive art is the most important: It is the art that tells us the most about who we are, who we think we are, and where we are going. Everything else is elevator music.

-JF

Re:What I got from the article...

[hiryuu]

...the impression I get is that he's saying "censor yourself, or be censored."

I haven't seen or intuited any kind of ultimatum in any of his statements, interviews, etc. I may well be overlooking them (not intentionally, I can assure you), but I just haven't felt like any kind of active threat or remediation is there in his responses. He feels strongly about what he considers appropriate, and he feels that games that reward "death and dismemberment" and that teach a moral detachment are bad, but he doesn't seem to be proposing gov't action of any kind. He recounts examples of media industry self-regulation, hypothetical and real, effective and not so, and would like to see private companies and whole market shares play by such rules.

Granted, I'm not sure I know exactly what he thinks true "encouragement" of the industry would be, and even effective self-regulation would have an effect on what we, as adults, could buy. (After all, if you remove the bottom half of the age-based bell-curve of gamers, then maybe iD [idsoftware.com] won't have a large enough market for the next Quake to be worth the millions sunk into such games. Marketing suits say "Time to make games that pay the bills - why don't we crank out another Commander Keen? There's family stuff that we can sell!")

It still comes down to some old guy in a suit feeding "for the children" lines to the public to try and get elected. This one is just trying to pander to those of us who value certain civil liberties. Which one is really important? Probably neither - it's campaign talk, and we all know what that is worth.

what he did say was .....

[Alien54]

I found this exchange enlightening:

DR: It is a common understanding among those who play videogames regularly that you think violent games should be regulated or banned. Is that an accurate assessment of your position? If not, what role should the federal government play in this issue?

JL: That is a common MISunderstanding. I have never proposed having the government ban games or regulate game content. I am a devout believer in the First Amendment, and have consistently opposed resorting to censorship to address the growing public concern about media violence and indecency -- for example I was one of just 16 senators who voted against the Communications Decency Act. Instead, I have simply called for better citizenship by the entertainment industry and the videogame makers, and urged them to accept greater responsibility for the influence they wield in our society. More specifically, I have asked them to set higher standards for their products and to draw basic lines they will not cross in order to make an extra dollar. And, short of that, I have asked them to do a better job of helping parents shield their children from inappropriate and potentially harmful products, providing them with useful tools like content-based ratings and blocking technology like the V-chip.

There are many constructive steps, though, the government can take to help parents and reduce the risk of media violence. Elected leaders can and should give voice to the values and concerns of the parents they represent and use the public platform they are afforded to demand more responsibility from media producers and retailers. In addition they can hold hearings and forums to raise public awareness about the threat of media violence and educate parents about things they can do to better protect their children.

so far he is taking a good game .....

and there is a legitimate question here.

Do game makers wield *any* influence on society at all? and should they care about the effects that they create if they do?

- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."

Re:what he did say was .....

[JeffL]

Instead, I have simply called for better citizenship by the entertainment industry and the videogame makers

What this means to me, is that he is saying he wants the entertainment industry to do what he thinks is right. His definition of better citizen, not mine or someone elses.

accept greater responsibility for the influence they wield in our society

With "responsibility" comes liability. Does Lieberman mean that unless the entertainment industry behaves in ways that he finds acceptable they will be liable for any bad consequences he thinks they have caused (whether the entertainment industry caused them or not).

I want to hear a politician say, "This is a free country, make whatever game, movie, or song you want, but don't try to do an end run around parents if they don't want their kids to get your product." Or something like that.

Re:what he did say was .....

[luckykaa]

What this means to me, is that he is saying he wants the entertainment industry to do what he thinks is right. His definition of better citizen, not mine or someone elses.

Of course he does. I want them to do what I think is right. As long as he's aware that other people might have a different opinion which they might express, and he limits himself to trying to persuade them that his view of right and wrong is a good one rather than trying to force his opinions on them then he's entitled to the same freedom of speech that they are.

You don't have to excersize your right to freedom of speech. I don't tell ugly people they're ugly even if I have the legal right. I just wouldn't think it was right to say it. If someone else did this then I'd ask them to stop being so offensive. Thats all he's doing. Asking them to be more responsible.

Re:What I got from the article...

[Masem]

Lieberman's POV is pretty much what the senate committee had last week. Namely, that in the interests of free speech, the US Gov does not want to regulate Hollywood, but if Hollywood does not to control it's tendencies to questionable content, the Gov't will threaten to step in and take the necessary steps. To some extent, there's no problem with this. I saw ads for Scary Movie (Rated R, with very blatent sexual content) during prime time shows, and particularly in shows that kids might be watching. Yes, part of it is up to the parent to make sure their child knows what the mature material might be, and parents now have options of vchips, but you can't work these all of the time, and there are ways of getting around it (ads are not blocked by the vchip, unless the show itself is blocked). Hollywood has shown a very lack of regard to parenting issues in order to try to make the buck. I think it is reasonable to expect Hollywood to shape up their act, not necessarily by not producing mature-themed shows, movies, and games, but by limited whom they direct these sales to, and realize that it's possible to produce more all-around friendly venues in addition to mature ones as to continue to earn money.

However, there is a point where the gov't can overstep it's bounds; if they try to start passing legislation to control the marketing of mature material, then it could easily spread to the internet, and no one wants to see that. I'm pretty sure that the Gov't understands this, along with most big ecommerce places, so it's unlikely this will happen with enough pressure on Hollywood, but it is a possible scenario.

Decisions, decisions.......NOT!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's assume for a moment we actually had to choose between censoring violence and porn. One of them is nasty, graphic, gory, messy, blood and guts everywhere kind of stuff. The other is people having sex. Which would you censor?

Re:what he did say was .....

[Danse]

Thats all he's doing. Asking them to be more responsible.

If that's all he's doing, then I wouldn't have a problem, but there seemed to be an implied threat that if they don't do what he wants, he'll find a way to make them do what he wants through legislation.

Re:Decisions, decisions.......NOT!!!!!!

[Kierthos]

Actually, the standpoint of the guvmint lately has been to censor both...

Teaching kids that rocket launchers are the best way to get "gibs" may not be the wisest course of action, but rare exceptions aside, I doubt video games have much influence on society. Sure, we're desensitized to violence, but I got more of that from the friggin' news then from playing DOOM (which I didn't start doing until my 2nd year of college). If kids were being affected by violent games as much as Congress would purport, then we should be flooded with violence from kids as we speak. We're not. I think that proves something.

Now, which would I censor? Neither. I don't like censorship. If I had any kids, I would reccommend that they not view or listen to certain things, but I can't say that I would stop them. (Of course, if I ever have a kid, this may change... :P) So what if Jr. listens to odd music. So do I... I may install some web-browser security until I think he's of age to view certain types of sites, but if he's smart enough to get around that, more power to him...

All in all, censorship is wrong. It is the belief that someone else thinks that something is bad, so you cannot view it, no matter what you think about it. It is taking away your freedom to choose.

Kierthos

Um.... No

[ronfar]

Back when it was Night Trap and Mortal Kombat on the block, Lieberman originally proposed an outright ban on "violent" video games. [gamespot.com] He later softened his demands, because the First Amendment still had some meaning in this country at that time.

We all know what this article is for. Basically, it's "let's calm down all the young people who are mad at me so they won't vote for Nader or some other non-Two party candidate come election day. That way, the day after I'm elected I can resume the war against the First Amendment, and we in the Democratic party won't have to worry about a credible alternative to the two party system."

Of course, I'm a Browne voter myself, but I don't think Harry is even on Lieberman's radar scope.

Anyone who's against video game censorship enough that it was going to effect their vote who votes for Gore/Lieberman based on this is an idiot. I have a bridge in New York I'd like to sell these voters.

Anyone who's worried that Lieberman has really sold out his right wing, pro-censorship ideals should rest assured. This is just a cynical election year ploy, sometimes you have to pretend to be something you aren't to win elections. Don't worry, once Lieberman is in, the video game industry will suffer for it.