wraggster
March 26th, 2009, 18:34
Videogame makers have always confronted censorship issues from two sides: internal pressures for self-censorship and external pressures from political restrictions. Speaking in the panel "Silencing the Censors: Recent Developments in the Battle for Free Expression in Game Development," attorney Lawrence Walter recalled the late 80's when Nintendo refused to publish games with blood and required all enemies be armed or else made unkillable. Konami was forced to change the statue of a nude woman in the background of Castlevania IV (Super Castlevania in North America) to be cleared for release.
More recently, politicians around the country have tried to control the sale and promotion of videogames with a slew of state laws. In Utah, a bill co-authored by Jack Thompson, the disbarred Florida attorney with a long history of professional misconduct, proposes to restrict the sale of videogames to minors using tenants from a truth in advertising law already passed. Earlier this year, a California law proposed a label be attached to all violent videogames: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."
A recent New York law proposes that violent videogames be displayed in a separate area at all game retailers, akin to the way pornography has been sectioned off in many video rental outlets. In Germany, Counter-Strike has been banned. Australia has no game rating in place for Mature titles, meaning anything inappropriate for teens is unsellable. In France a recent tax incentive for game development is restricted to only those developers making non-violent content.
Where such laws have passed in the US, they have been struck down as unconstitutional in almost every case. Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court struck down a 2005 law passed in California which restricted the sale or rental of violent video games to minors by penalizing merchants. The standards used to define violent content in the bill were inappropriately taken from a "harmful materials" portion of another law intended to protect minors from sex offenses. Elsewhere, courts have ruled that forcing publishers to label their games with an "18" marker qualifies as "compelled speech." Thanks to First Amendment protections, no person or party can be compelled to say something they don't want to say.
Still, videogames remain an easy target for politicians and conservative groups around the world. The games industry is getting ready to fight back. In another session promoting the Anti-Censorship and Social Issues Committee, Daniel Greenberg, a game consultant and lobbyist, laid out the framework for the continuation of his fight against videogame censorship.
There are three main tenants to Greenberg's call to consolidate a strong and powerful Anti-Censorship Committee in the games industry. The first and most important issue is the creation of an ESRB cheat sheet for developers and publishers to use so that they know what sort of rating they can expect from the ESRB. In the past, many developers have worked without any idea where there game would fall in accordance with current ESRB guidelines. Those guidelines have been available in the past, but as they continue to evolve, a Committee is needed to update those changes and make sure they are distributed as widely as possible.
The next essential action point is the creation of a Best Practices document that developers can use for guidance in addressing potentially sensitive themes or scenarios, as well as handling media interest in a potential controversy. According to Greenberg, some of the biggest pressures for limiting content can come from self-censorship. This Best Practices document would encourage developers to think about how to responsibly defend their creations.
Each game will require its own unique reasoning for potentially controversial content. "The Godfather is a very different movie from Faster Pussycat Kill, Kill," noted Greenberg. "Not that you shouldn't make violent video games, but we want to encourage thought about responsibilities."
The final component in the Anti-Censorship Committee would be the formation of Rapid Response that can be deployed across the country to testify at the local, state and federal level. Often politicians unfamiliar with the whole videogame "thing" will hold hearings to investigate their most extreme suspicions about social decay, and there are too few experienced advocated willing to step forward and speak in defense of the medium.
As game makers continue to push the boundaries social and political forces will continue to push back. An organized committee with experienced industry veterans, would be the best way to ensure the expressive freedom of all future game designers.
http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/966/966545p1.html
More recently, politicians around the country have tried to control the sale and promotion of videogames with a slew of state laws. In Utah, a bill co-authored by Jack Thompson, the disbarred Florida attorney with a long history of professional misconduct, proposes to restrict the sale of videogames to minors using tenants from a truth in advertising law already passed. Earlier this year, a California law proposed a label be attached to all violent videogames: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."
A recent New York law proposes that violent videogames be displayed in a separate area at all game retailers, akin to the way pornography has been sectioned off in many video rental outlets. In Germany, Counter-Strike has been banned. Australia has no game rating in place for Mature titles, meaning anything inappropriate for teens is unsellable. In France a recent tax incentive for game development is restricted to only those developers making non-violent content.
Where such laws have passed in the US, they have been struck down as unconstitutional in almost every case. Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court struck down a 2005 law passed in California which restricted the sale or rental of violent video games to minors by penalizing merchants. The standards used to define violent content in the bill were inappropriately taken from a "harmful materials" portion of another law intended to protect minors from sex offenses. Elsewhere, courts have ruled that forcing publishers to label their games with an "18" marker qualifies as "compelled speech." Thanks to First Amendment protections, no person or party can be compelled to say something they don't want to say.
Still, videogames remain an easy target for politicians and conservative groups around the world. The games industry is getting ready to fight back. In another session promoting the Anti-Censorship and Social Issues Committee, Daniel Greenberg, a game consultant and lobbyist, laid out the framework for the continuation of his fight against videogame censorship.
There are three main tenants to Greenberg's call to consolidate a strong and powerful Anti-Censorship Committee in the games industry. The first and most important issue is the creation of an ESRB cheat sheet for developers and publishers to use so that they know what sort of rating they can expect from the ESRB. In the past, many developers have worked without any idea where there game would fall in accordance with current ESRB guidelines. Those guidelines have been available in the past, but as they continue to evolve, a Committee is needed to update those changes and make sure they are distributed as widely as possible.
The next essential action point is the creation of a Best Practices document that developers can use for guidance in addressing potentially sensitive themes or scenarios, as well as handling media interest in a potential controversy. According to Greenberg, some of the biggest pressures for limiting content can come from self-censorship. This Best Practices document would encourage developers to think about how to responsibly defend their creations.
Each game will require its own unique reasoning for potentially controversial content. "The Godfather is a very different movie from Faster Pussycat Kill, Kill," noted Greenberg. "Not that you shouldn't make violent video games, but we want to encourage thought about responsibilities."
The final component in the Anti-Censorship Committee would be the formation of Rapid Response that can be deployed across the country to testify at the local, state and federal level. Often politicians unfamiliar with the whole videogame "thing" will hold hearings to investigate their most extreme suspicions about social decay, and there are too few experienced advocated willing to step forward and speak in defense of the medium.
As game makers continue to push the boundaries social and political forces will continue to push back. An organized committee with experienced industry veterans, would be the best way to ensure the expressive freedom of all future game designers.
http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/966/966545p1.html