Regulation is Not Censorship and GTA3 was Never Intended for Adults

by Martin Haller

Original Editorial: Where Does The Blame Really Lie?

It has ever been the defense of the irresponsible to move the blame as far from themselves as possible. Hence, history and fiction is littered with villains who "merely gave tools" and let others "do with them what they wished." Most recently, such villains have been the Tobacco Industry -- which merely provided cigarettes, without ever forcing them down anyone's throat -- and gun manufacturers, with their trite "Guns don't kill people" slogan. No doubt we could list a hundred more such shameless peddlers of harm, but let us stop generalizing, and come to the specific case that inspires this commentary: the producers of violent media in America today.

There is a strange schizophrenia that afflicts Hollywood, the greatest purveyor of violent entertainment: on the one hand, Hollywood rushes to boast about its influence over society -- directors, writers, and producers rushed to help the Bush administration develop anti-terrorist propaganda following the war. This same bunch will tell us about how they create "thought-provoking films" and about how they highlight the suffering of this group or that minority. This assessment seems wholly accurate. But yet the moment they are done singing their own praises, Hollywood spins, dons a new mask and declares: "We don't inspire violence! It's not our responsibility to monitor content! We have no sway over what people go see! It's their choice, not ours!" Shall we translate? "We merely provide the entertainment, the audience chooses to come or doesn't. And afterwards, whatever they do with their lives is their fault."

But this is clearly a naïve claim. Anyone who has watched young children fetishize Pokémon toys or recite verbatim snippets of dialogue from their favorite movies, anyone who listens to adolescents trade memories of the latest flick they attended, anyone who inspects himself, knows that movies leave a lasting impact upon us. Movies can help shape public knowledge -- Braveheart's historically incorrect "prima nocte" is a fine example of this; they can draw attention to a social ill -- Philadelphia's depiction of the slow death of an AIDS victim comes to mind; and, more importantly, they model behavior for viewers -- consider the deaths of football players mimicking the lying-on-the-highway scene of The Program, or, on a more basic level, the fact that in Iran, there is a type of haircut called simply The Titanic, styled upon the hair of Leonardo di Caprio in that movie. When Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles at the Sudan, his press secretary was asked by a reporter: "Have you seen the movie Wag the Dog?"

If we are being the least bit intellectually honest, we must confess that movies play a substantial role in influencing the public. And now, with this long-winded preamble complete, let us get to the matter at hand: Michael Bischoff's ill-conceived editorial, "Where Does the Blame Really Lie?"

Let us also make clear that no one is intending "censorship" -- the catch-phrase liberals and conservatives alike run to whenever a pet cause of theirs comes under fire. What is being suggested is tighter regulation of marketing and sales -- similar to the laws presently on the books for pornography, alcohol, and tobacco products.

But factual errors aside, where Mr. Bischoff's argument really falls apart is in its normative assumptions. On the one hand, we have the curious statement: "This is the reason why adult games exist; there are many adults willing to play them." Adult games. Is he referring here to Grand Theft Auto III? And whom is he classifying as adults? For, I quite assure you, nary a thirty-year-old that I know plays the game. Does he mean "legal adolescents?" GTA3 is not an "adult" or a "mature" game -- though it may be rated as such. It is a sophomoric and pubescent game about violence and sex. It is played exclusively, I would charge, be males under the age of 25. Do kids under the age 15 play it? You better believe it. That's why its makers place ads in video game magazines, which have almost no "adult" readership.

But that is a semantic issue. The issue really at stake is whether or not society has a right to regulate violent and obscene media. Legally, the answer is an emphatic "Yes." Genuine obscenity is outright forbidden; the FCC was close to condemning a song of Eminem's as "obscene" under these standards, and no doubt using that same logic, GTA3 would be obscene as well. Mr. Bischoff awkwardly suggests that the Ku Klux Klan should be censored (one assumes he means the speech of the Klan, unless he suggests muzzling Klansmen as they talk to their families about the weather) instead of violent media. It is worth noting that the Klan is forbidden from certain speech acts: specifically those which would induce violent behavior. Bischoff is correct in saying, however, the video games do not directly cause such behavior. But he is wrong in his belief that, therefore, they should not be subject to regulation or scorn.

Public outcry, advertising restrictions, and game ratings are not "censorship." They are regulation of a potentially developmentally harmful media -- the exact same regulations used against pornography, and, to a large extent, film media. Such regulation would only be ill-advised if it somehow resulted in negative effects. But nowhere does Mr. Bischoff cite what these effects might be. If only adults are playing violent/sexual games, then surely they would not be harmed by advertising restrictions or age limitations? Rather than pointing out harms with video game regulation, Mr. Bischoff instead gives the tired hurrah, "Let the parents deal with it."

But perhaps this should read "Let the working parent find a way to regulate the behavior of a child who is at home while the parent is not." Most parents do not have the luxury of monitoring their children's behavior. From my own childhood experience -- in a two parent household with a stay at home mom -- I am well aware that even in the best case scenario, parents are largely unaware of what games their children are playing. Mr. Bischoff himself admits that parents are "ignorant" of games and "unaware" of what they are really like. Surely he cannot expect these same parents to have the magical wherewithal to tell their children what games are appropriate and what games are not?

It would be enough to stop there: but Mr. Bischoff's strange last paragraph deserves note:

"The sane people of the world must protect this game and others like it. It has the unalienable right to live just like every single person in the world. Nobody should be allowed to limit freedom of choice and besides if this freedom is abolished, what could be next?"

One can assume the "it" which has "the unalienable right to live" is GTA3 (although how it is "just like every single person in the world" is hard to comprehend) and that "live" means to exist. Given this reading, Mr. Bischoff must be reiterating his earlier claim that it is a "fact that all creative works have the right to exist, no matter how ugly or offensive."

But it is precisely this fact that I will call into question. Surely we do not believe that child pornography has a "right" to exist, or that terrorists have the right to circulate information on how to best destroy skyscrapers to members of their cell. Perhaps Mr. Bischoff would claim that child pornography and violent conspiracy are not "creative works" -- but once he makes that claim, he has put himself in the shoes of the censor, who claims the right to assess what is worthy of existence and what not.

I would make a very different claim: society has a right to determine what is socially acceptable and what is not. Though it has no right to regulate the private behavior of individuals, it has the right to regulate public expressions, and when those public expressions are developmentally disruptive, society has the duty to protect minors from their effects. We are in a society which limits our "freedom of choice" every day -- we cannot drive on whichever side of the street we choose, we cannot claim for ourselves whatever piece of property catches our eye. We cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater or urinate on a park bench. Though Mr. Bischoff makes the classic logical fallacy -- the slippery slope -- to defend his claim "If this freedom [to market violent games to minors] is abolished, what could be next?" he could just have easily made the opposing claim: "If we allow corporations to sell violence and peddle sex to children, what more will we let them do to our kids?" Neither claim is wholly valid, but if I had to side with one, it would be the second.