Hello there guys and dolls, and welcome to the 12th edition of the weekly weigh in. That means I have been writing these little articles for three months and I am still fresh as a Spring daisy in the well. Spring. I am holding out for some kind of medal, but every time I bring this up to my editor, he just laughs and shakes his head, cracking that whip of his a little harder.

I watch the sun set on another beautiful day as I sit in my mansion in the hills, (wait.. I mean apartment in the ‘burbs..) and put together another string of pure gold for my loyal readers to enjoy. That pang in your chest is the guilt at reading this pure piece of wonder for free, but don’t worry folks, I do this for the love of the game as they say. And they will have to pry this keyboard from my cold dead hands (as they say) before I will ever stop getting these articles out to you.

And now for something completely different…

The Lark

I had to get that out of my system.

And now onto serious business…

The Lark

Ok, ok, I just thought that was hilarious. Monty Python at it’s best.

Now, to this weeks article…

The Lark

That last one was just for giggles. Now time to get on with this weeks article.

Last week I promised an article about human frailty in heroes and why these are some of my favorite to watch and to talk about. I am still putting that one together and will probably have it to you next week. This week, I wanted to give you an article I wrote a few months ago, about an issue in the entertainment world that I find a little disturbing. This was originally written in February and may be a little dated. I hope you enjoy: . . . . . . The January 10th issue of Time Magazine came to my mailbox with the headline “Tsunami” boldly printed across the cover. Most of the magazine was dedicated to the devastation laid by the worst natural disaster any one alive has ever seen, and the effort to help those in need. But after reading the article and flipping through a few smaller articles afterwards, I came across a piece by Anita Hamilton entitled “Video Vigilante”, and took a few minutes to see what was happening in a lighter area of our world, video games.

It appears through the article, and from his website, that the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich is trying to pass two laws that would make it illegal to sell “M” rated video games to minors. The governor has even launched a website where parents can find information on the impact of violent video games and exchange warnings about these games.

The article goes on to talk about how other cities in the nation have attempted to pass laws prohibiting retailers from selling the mature titles to minors, (Halo 2, GTA San Andreas, Doom 3, Rumble Roses, and Psi Ops: Mindgame Conspiracy are specifically targeted), and all have been struck down in court because video games are considered protected free speech by the first amendment, and not obscene. The new law would redefine the obscenity statues in Illinois to include any acts that are realistic depictions of human on human violence and sexuality, a definition that is commonly upheld in most courts. Consequently, any retailer caught selling these games would be prosecuted under the state’s misdemeanor obscenity laws, a $5000 fine and or up to a year in jail, and the conviction can never be expunged or sealed. Here is where I stopped and thought about what I had just read. “A realistic depiction of human on human violence and sexuality”. Growing up as a kid, that pretty much sounds like every Steven Segal, Jean Claude van Damme (not to mention every other movie) I was interested in seeing as a 13 year old. Although, I don’t remember ever hearing about blockbuster video employees being drug away in paddy wagons by the truckload. But of course that’s because the general definition of obscenity upheld in the 50 states is described as material that, “to the average person, using community standards and taken as a whole (1) predominantly appeals to prurient (characterized by an inordinate interest in sex) interests, (2) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and (3) describes nudity, sex or excretion in a patently offensive way”, normally used to define pornography. A much more defined definition than, “a realistic depiction of human on human violence and sexuality”.

I don't have any children, and once being one myself, (some women would stay I still am), I’m all for shielding children from things that they are not old enough to process and fully understand for themselves until they are old enough to do so. But two questions about the article nagged at me, (1) what has the federal government done to prevent putting violent and sexual material in the hands of children, (2) are laws like the one proposed by Gov. Blagojvich even necessary, if not then what are the underlying reason for the law?

Connecticut Senator (D) Joe Lieberman, before his failed run for vice president, was best known for his Mrs. Rev. Lovejoyesque battle cry, “for God’s sake, think of the children”. He railed against the evils of violence and sexuality on television. The result was a study commissioned by Congress published in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that answered the question “what influence does violence and sexuality in the media have on our children.” In sec 551, appropriately titled “parental choice in television programming”, they found:

(1) Television influences children’s perception of the values and behavior that are common and acceptable in society.
(2) Television station operators, cable television system operators, and video game programmers should follow practices in connection with video programming that take in consideration that television and cable programming has established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of American children.
(3) The average child is exposed to 25 hours of television each week and some children are exposed to as much 11 hours a day.
(4) Studies have shown that children exposed to violent video programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed, and that children exposed to violent video programming are prone to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.(5) Children on average are exposed to an estimated 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time the child completes elementary school.
(6) Studies indicate that children are affected by the pervasiveness and casual treatment of sexual material on television, eroding the ability of parents to develop responsible attitudes and behavior to their children.(7) Parents express grave concern over violent and sexual video programming and strongly support technology that would give them greater control to block video programming in the home that they consider harmful to their children.
(8) There is compelling government interest in empowering parents to limit the negative influences of programming that is harmful to children.
(9) Providing parents with timely information about the nature of upcoming video programming and with the technological tools that allow them easily to block violent, sexual, or other programming that they believe harmful to their children is a non intrusive and narrowly tailored means of achieving that compelling government interest.

In light of these incredible findings about the erosion of our children’s morality through violence and sexuality on television, did the federal government run out and attempt to pass laws closing down HBO for showing Die Hard on a Saturday afternoon. Did they lock up the programmers at Rockstar games for their game Grand Theft Auto? No, in fact they took a fairly novel approach, taking into account numbers 7,8, and 9 in their findings they decided to work with the movie, music, and gaming industries to make parents more aware of what was in the material their children were watching. They began a campaign to make people aware of what the MPAA ratings mean, (a 2002 FTC study showed that a full 98% of the viewing public could identify and explain each rating, a similar survey around the time found that only about 48% of people surveyed could find Florida on a map of the US). Movie studios stepped up their pressure on movie theaters to make it difficult for minors to see an rated “R” movie, the V Chip, mandatory in all televisions made after January, 1, 2000, allowing parents to block programming they don't want their children to see; and with video games becoming more and more violent and sexually oriented, the ESRB was created, a rating system for video games much like the MPAA guidelines.

Not resting on the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FTC has to date issued four studies to monitor the progress of these industries in making parents more aware of violent and or sexual content. It’s most recent study has found, in reference to the gaming industry: that although a substantial part of the gaming industry is complying with industry standards by predominantly placing the ESRB ratings in all of their advertisements and on packaging, they have not gone far enough in explaining the meaning these ratings. And at this point some “M” rates games are advertised in teen magazines and “T” rated games are advertised in pre-teen magazines. The FTC is continuing to work with the gaming industry and parents to make them more aware of the ratings, what they mean, and to monitor where these games are advertised. I want to make a quick note about this. The MPAA has been around about 40 years; the ESRB ratings have been around for about 2. If you need a quick reference guide to the ESRB ratings, you can google ESRB for their website, find the listing on any company website that sells video games, or I found them easily accessible on the Blockbuster website with easy to use content descriptions. Also, while doing a little research at home, (playing Madden on my Xbox), I noticed an astounding thing, a parental blocking ability on my Xbox, for both movies and games rating systems. If I were so inclined, (and being over the age of 18, and a fan of the more violent side of video games, why would I?), I could block out the type of games and movies shown on my Xbox. The Playstation 2 has the same feature in it’s settings function.

After digging up all of this information on what the federal government is doing to help parents become more aware of what their children are watching, playing, and helping to empower them to control material they may find inappropriate. In my findings, that seems to be their goal rather than to legislate fines and jail time for the retailer of mature material, I can’t figure out why the Governor of Illinois seems to be taking a completely different approach to the problem. Then I went back to the Time magazine article that originally piqued my interest. A quote by the Governor helped me to understand the thought process going into these laws. “The $7 billion video game industry targets it’s products at kids. Just as children buying cigarettes is inappropriate, just as children buying alcohol is inappropriate, just as a child buying pornography is inappropriate, the same kind of thinking, in my judgment, applies to violent video games and graphic sexual video games”. Then my head exploded, leaving a pretty little burst of color all over the wall behind me.

How exactly does someone come to the conclusion that mature video games are as “inappropriate” for children as smoking, drinking and watching porn? Smoking will kill you, drinking will kill you or others if not taken responsibly. This is exactly why both are illegal to sell to minors, punishable by fines and eventually jail time. Pornography, well there has to be some benefit to being an adult. Violent and sexual video games don’t kill. They may make people more aggressive, desensitized to violence and sexuality, as per Congressional finding, but so does violent film and music. Congress has chosen to work with these industries and parents to empower them to decide whether they are inappropriate for their own children

That leads me to one of two conclusions. (1) The Governor of Illinois, (D) Rod Blagojevich has put together a misguided initiative to curb what he sees as an out of control problem or, (2), (the one I tend to subscribe to), this is another politician looking to decide what is better for people, because he feels they are too stupid to figure it out themselves. Reading his website, and the site specific to his crusade, no.. too biblical, his cause (better word), http://www.safegamesillinois.org/ he seems to be trying to convince people that they actually need the government to step in and take care of problems they have a responsibility to resolve themselves. To make them feel that they are accomplishing goals for the betterment of society, and that he as their governor is truly looking out for their best interest. But don't be fooled, just because a man wears a nice suit and tells you that this remedy will cure everything from rashes to infidelity, be sure to check under the hood before you drive the car off the lot.

Ahh... politicians stepping over the boundaries between legislative authority and personal responsibility, but I suppose that is an argument for another time and place.