More attempted censorship by the Washington fascists.

Our economy is in the crapper and this is what these two idiots are focusing on? Is it any wonder why Congress has a lower approval rating than GW? Congress needs a good layoff.

this man is about to get a tsunami of hatemail from 4chan and every other strange corner of the internet.... gl joe baca.

Rock N' Roll is the music of the devil.

(remember those days? today it is video games)

Yet another politician playing on people's ignorance in order to gain popularity.

It is people like this that demand the industry to be constantly on its toes in regards to PR and self-regulation.

Wow, another sensationalist politician here with the latest news: the most popular form of media at this time is linked to VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN! WARNING!

Elvis, Mark Twain, Metallica, jazz music, Harry Potter... when is this crusade against America's youth going to end? I'm very disappointed in you, American medic. Always training the children to be sex and murder machines.

... American medic? Must be all that subliminal training I've been getting from my first person shooters. MEDIC!

and television and movies are the saving grace? Our society is not becoming more violent, we are living closer with growing population density and the muder rate is in much greater line with ECONOMIC conditions. Put 100 rich kids in a room with a solid family life and then somehow this terrible influence in negated by what is seen in thier environment. Family values, role models and environment are such a bigger influence these guys just look silly.

Sugar causes increases hightened levels of activity and eventual increase in anxiety, along those lines...

Ban the BLOWPOPS, save the children!!!!

I like the idea "congress needs a good layoff" and these two should be near the top of the list

Can we have the same warning label be put on Politicians?:

"WARNING: Excessive exposure to politicians and other bureaucrats has been linked to aggressive behavior."

Now *that* makes sense.

I think it is disingenuous of them to use language that is inflammatory and prone to misunderstanding by consumers. Their statement doesn't mention causality, only a 'link'. I'm curious how many consumers are likely to understand the statement correctly? People aren't stupid, but at the same time this type of phrasing is used all of the time, with causation the implied subtext.

Everyone: educate those around you that these statements are akin to "Drinking water has been linked to thirst". Linked, yes. Does the former cause the latter: no.

Fight the spin!

As a response to everybody's comments about the "research" in question.

Study after study has shown both short term causality links to increased aggression patterns in the brain , short term correlations in competitiveness/aggressiveness and long term correlations showing video gamers tend to be more aggressive and violent than their non-gamer counterparts. (Anderson et.al "Violent Video Game Effects"). Giving parents warning labels will help us protect children until they are old enough to decide for themselves what is appropriate for them (just as we do with cars, cigarettes and alcohol). Meanwhile, all of us adults can continue to buy the games we want, but now we have more information about games that not everyone knows.

That being said, violence in media is more likely to have an effect if A) The violence is seen as funny and B) The consequences of violence are not shown. (Kutner "Grand Theft Childhood") For this reason, violent E and T rated games are significantly* more likely than M rated games to increase aggression. So this proposed label should be on all violent games, not just T and M rated ones.

*At alpha=0.05 (the difference is very small, but statistically significant)

While no one bit of media is likely to turn any individual into a stone killer, every little bit of expressive media does contribute to the overall tone of a culture. Consequently, I believe game developers, just like others who benefit from a culture, have some amount of social responsibility to ennoble that culture with positive contributions. On that basis, I could wish for more games that entertain us through cooperative/creative play rather than through constant conflict and destruction.

That said, like others who've commented, I also object to the proposed legislation. It inappropriately singles out games as dangers; it fails to accurately represent the lack of consensus on the subject of media-incited violence; and it's yet another step toward the smothering embrace of the Nanny State -- on any of these grounds, it's needless and undesirable legislation.

Consider the proposed labeling: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."

1. What constitutes "excessive exposure?" Isn't "excessive" exposure to anything likely to be unhealthy?

2. What are these "other violent media?" Would the proposed labeling also be prominently placed on the packaging of these other media artifacts?

I look to Gamasutra for straight reporting on this subject over the short term, and over the long term on the larger question of the relationships between games, violence, and our overall culture.

'This is a public mental health issue.'
From Jonathan Blow's 'Design Reboot' lecture.

Addiction & increased aggression seem to be real issues that are often immediately ignored, trivialized or disparaged by videogame creators & enthusiasts who may be eager to defend an identity-defining pastime & culture.

Understandable? Perhaps.

Willfully naive? Maybe.

Irresponsible? Hnnm...

In any case, the burden of responsibility for these issues seems to fall to a motley crew of outsiders: individuals, organizations & agencies with a stake in society and a limited understanding and appreciation of videogames.

Are these outsiders blame-worthy? I don't know.

I'm kind of disappointed, though not surprised by the responses. It kind of reminds me of the Jack Johnson song Cookie Jar.

I don't know if I agree with the legislation or not, but I do believe in influences. I see them all the time and a bad influence can impact someone's life just like a good influence can help people aspire to better things (a good teacher for example).

Games, like everything else in life, impact the people who experience them. Games influence. That doesn't make games responsible for people's actions. However, I would hope that the industry would be mature enough to recognize and take responsible for the type of influences that we create.

The problem is you would also have to label movies, television shows, music, reading material, podcasts, and so on. Where would it end? It really is just another politician attacking the current big thing in entertainment; it happened with rock 'n' roll, it happened with comic books, and today's big thing is attacking video games. So trite.

The problem here is that this is another example of a politician attacking something that he himself is not interested in. He most likely doesn't like or play video games, so it seems a likely thing to attack. However, you don't see them attacking things they do appreciate or may affect them overall.

There has been no, and I repeat, no conclusive evidence to specifically link video games with any particularly violent event, and any attempts to link them have been purely speculation (for example, Columbine or previous accusations that Dungeons and Dragons inspired a child to murder his brother, etc). Studies have either been inconclusive, or have had counter studies made to contradict previous finding (in essence, negating each other out). Influence exists, sure. When I was a kid, I watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and of course, like to run around pretending I was a Ninja Turtle, but I knew right from wrong and I knew that attacking people with real weapons would be harmful, so I don't buy the argument that video games are responsible for a lack of a grasp on reality or consequences, and anyone who has claimed it is using it as a scapegoat because they realize that they need a "temporary insanity" plea to get away with it when they realize they are in trouble.

Studies have been shown, however, that aggressive tenancies are linked with, say driving, or physical sports. In fact, studies have show that more kids have harmed each other, or have otherwise been injured due to aggression or competitiveness. Pretty soon, our kids wont be able to do ANYTHING.

Yet lets attack the real issue. Can we not agree that cars cause more deaths than you can ever argue can be linked to video games. So now if they want to propose taking away video games, lets propose we take away their drivers licenses "for their own safety" and lets see how far they take that. I guarantee they won't be open to suggestion, because ultimately, politicians want to drive, and God forbid they tackle an issue that could affect THEIR lives.

Lets face it, these politicians are simply attacking something they don't understand or care about, so they can try and justify their paycheck. Plain and simple. It's not even worth taking them seriously.

This particular assault is troubling because it could lead to a back-door government regulation scheme. If this control passes, it would ether have to be based on the existing ESRB ratings, or a new organization would be formed by the government.

There's studies that prove the opposite and that violent video games make a person more relaxed and less violent because they get their day to day frustrations out in the game.

I doubt this will get anywhere. Sugar, white flour, and corn are more dangerous to your health, and none of them have health warnings about excess consumption.

Either way, if it did happen, it probably wouldn't do much. People still smoke and drink and there's health warnings. The only people who would really pay much attention to it are paranoid parents and people who already hate video games.

WARNING: Excessive exposure to Religion, News, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Caffeine, Oil Prices, Corrupt Politicians and Greedy Corporate Executives has been linked to aggressive behavior

Oh yeah...and lets say absolutely nothing about modern medicne in the US being the leading cause of death... those videogames are DANGEROUS!!!!!!
...

Chris and Edward; I couldn't agree with you more. Video games are the easy target these days. It is the PARENTS who are responsible for filtering what their children see and play. If you're not teaching your children the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy, or simply throwing them in front of the TV/computer, etc instead of spending time with them then shit is going to happen. A 10 year old isn't supposed to play GTA IV. That's not the developer's fault.

Get to the heart of the issue here folks and be honest where the true lack of responsibility lies. Accountability.

The samples varied in grade from 3rd to 12th

They asked them what their favorite video games were and then took the ones with a high violent content.
(no notes on what that content was)

Then they used the Buss-Perry Agression Questionnaire to asses how violent the 8 - 18 year old students were... This is the questionnaire. Let me know if you think it might provide some "false positives" with American teenagers:

Please rate each of the following items in terms of how characteristic they are of you. Use
the following scale for answering these items.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
extremely extremely
uncharacteristic characteristic
of me of me


01) Once in a while I can't control the urge to strike another person.
02) Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.
03) If somebody hits me, I hit back.
04) I get into fights a little more than the average person.
05) If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.
06) There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.
07) I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.
08) I have threatened people I know.
09) I have become so mad that I have broken things.
10) I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.
11) I often find myself disagreeing with people.
12) When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.
13) I can't help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.
14) My friends say that I'm somewhat argumentative.
15) I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.
16) When frustrated, I let my irritation show.
17) I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.
18) I am an even-tempered person.
19) Some of my friends think I'm a hothead.
20) Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.
21) I have trouble controlling my temper.
22) I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.
23) At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.
24) Other people always seem to get the breaks.
25) I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.
26) I know that "friends" talk about me behind my back.
27) I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.
28) I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind me back.
29) When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want.

1-9 Physical Aggression; 10-14 Verbal Aggression; 15-21 Anger; 22-29 Hostility

about the above scale. 1 is supposed to mean "extremely uncharacteristic of me" and 7 means "extremely
characteristic of me". It kinda scrunched it up there...

Sorry, I misread the study. This is the method they used to measure aggression:
For both Japanese samples, the measure of aggressive behavior was self-reported trait physical aggression. For the younger sample, a 6-item Japanese version of the Buss and Perry physical aggression scale was used.
For the older Japanese sample, a 1-item self-report measure of frequency of physical aggression (involving punching or kicking someone) in the last month. For the US sample, the measure of aggressive behavior was an index of teacher, peer, and self-reports of physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking, and getting into fights in the last year.
It sems a little more even but with the limited time I spent studying statistics it something about it still seems a bit off...
Anyway If you want to see the study that the lawmakers will most likely quote the pdf is at:
http://www.mediafamily.org/research/gentile_08.pdf

Thanks Aaron,
why not just put those warnings about the games contents (like "intense violence", "strong language", etc. on the front of the box? Dumb parents don't even have to flip the box to see if it's appropriate.

I'm fairly certain excessive exposure to medical warnings can be linked to depression, neurosis, paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorder.

A comprehensive study with carefully constructed, non-biased controls is desperately needed here.
I agree that parents should be more responsible in regulating the content their children are exposed to.
People play violent video games because they enjoy them. If you ask a teenager what his favorite game is and he says "GTA IV", then you test that person to measure his "violent tendencies", I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he will likely test higher than the teen whose favorite game is Animal Crossing.
People possess varying degrees of violent tendencies regardless of whether they are playing violent games. Some of those people are going to act on those tendencies. Those people, not a supposed catalyst of the violent behavior, should be blamed. Too bad we can't put a warning on the violent people instead of the games.

I am not entire certain that labeling video games with health warning labels is the best of choices. At the moment psychological research is split two ways so there is no clear cut answer at the moment. I believe the best way to handle this is to make ESRB notices much more noticeable, restrict sales to minors as best as possible, and to launch an education advertising campaign teaching parents about the ESRB rating system and what each rating exactly entails. If people are concerned about youth playing violent video games, we need to make sure their guardians are being responsible for them.

Aggression is not bad, in and of itself. Aggression is a human quality that can be implemented to accomplish either good or bad deeds. What's important is to learn how to properly direct aggression. Hence, the importance of the role of parents, especially mothers.

I vehemently disagree with Tawna. While aggressive behavior might be a quality of -some- humans at -some- point in time it is not the case that it's simply amoral and therefore must be judged in the context in which it's used.

While there might be short term social benefits in the use of aggression on the part of a police man being attacked by a criminal it is simply does not follow that aggression is, in general a neutral thing. An easy way to see this is moving things to the extreme. How would the world look like if aggression was the dominant strategy in relationships? And now, look in the opposite direction: how would the world be if aggression was never a card to play?

Not everything is relative. There are things that have a clear directionality toward the better. The trick is to expand the scope of the ethical judgment. If something make sense in a small scope, at local level, in a particular set of circumstances, check how it fares at national or global level. Aggression is simply -not- good for mankind and we should try to eliminate it as much as possible.

That been said I think the jury is still out on the issue of games making people more aggressive, but one thing I can say: I'd really like to see the same research done on people in the categories "tv-watchers", "book-readers" and "music-listeners". I'm not entirely sure that a link would be as easily found between those people's level of aggressiveness and violent shows/books/music.

My suspicion is that unfortunately it is True that as you experience and "drive" the story of a game it has an effect on you that is greater than in traditionally more "passive" medias such as tv/books/music. In this context, as a long-time gamer occasionally playing (and enjoying) violent titles, I'm in support of ratings and laws that prevent children and teenagers from buying games that are not appropriate for them. But to be on the safe side, I'd also want the same measures applied to the other medias too.