Get off the shed! 2006-05-02

On April 16, 2006, the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran what was essentially a guest editorial by state Representative Jeff Johnson. Mr. Johnson was making mention of how he was introducing a bill that would levy a fine of $25 to retailers and rental agencies if they allowed an AO- or M- rated game to fall into the hands of someone under the age of 17, citing the desire to restrict their “access to extremely violent or sexually explicit video games.” Now, before moving on, let me state that I am a gamer and also the father of 2.5 small children and one under-age cat. When I play Diablo or Half-Life, it’s when the kids aren’t around and they will not play those games until I deem they are mature enough to understand the difference between the fantasy world of these games and the reality that they have to face every day. However, I would be against the bill Mr. Johnson has introduced for the fact that it singles out video games and video games alone for these penalties.

I can completely understand wanting to keep a child away from a game where a prisoner’s ear is cut off and he was soaked in gasoline. Oh, wait, that was Reservoir Dogs. Well, in another example, we would definitely want to protect our children from a video game where they would see a man get shot in the back of his head and he’s lying on the floor with his jaw blown off in a pool of his own blood. No. That was A History of Violence. I forgot that. Well, how about where a person is talking about wanting to kill all of the police. Shoot. Wrong again. That was Ice T’s “Cop Killer.” My point here is that while video games do have violent images and harsh language, there are examples from other media of comparable actions. However, Mr. Johnson’s bill would be limited to only video games.

When the whole “Hot Coffee” debacle for “Grand Theft Auto” was discovered (something for which Rockstar Games should have gotten into big trouble for, by the way), I remembered a lady in her 50’s or 60’s being interviewed and she said, “If I had known that this sort of thing was in there, I would never have bought it for my twelve-year-old grandson.” This is indicative of the larger problem with video games. It’s not that a kid can go to a retailer and purchase it for themselves, but that their parents and grandparents have no idea what the little letter on the front of the box means. This woman bought what was the equivalent of an R-rated movie for her grandson and it’s only from the media attention paid to the game because of “Hot Coffee” that she has any clue that there was any sex or violence in the game. If a person wants to punish anyone for allowing a child to view this content, it should be the adults who purchase these games.

Another thing that Mr. Johnson “forgets” to mention is the fact that other states (such as Illinois) have tried to do bills like this before, and each time, they have been struck down as unconstitutional. However, politicians continue to introduce bills that would limit the sale of video games. It is my belief that the majority of these bills are introduced with full knowledge that they’ll pass, but be invalidated by the courts. Even when they are struck from the law, the politian is still able to say, “I passed this law and I’m trying to help your families” in a bid for re-election. It has become all about getting the votes; never mind the fact that they are wasting the public’s money in getting the bill passed, enforcing it for the first time and defending the bill in a, usually, hopeless effort to keep it from being stricken from the law.

I really do hope that Mr. Johnson has the families’ best interests in mind, and this bill isn’t just a ploy to be able to claim that he cares about families. However, if he truly cared about the Minnesotan family, it would not be limited to just video games. It would include R-rated movies and compact disks with the “Explicit Lyrics” tag. Limiting it just to video games is why I’m against it.

I’m Jeff Kamp and I approve this rant.