Ironworks Gaming Forum - Who's protecting our rights? Games on politics, is it fair?

From PCGamer Magazine:
http://www.pcgamer.com/eyewitness/ey...002-10-15.html

<font color=orange>Try explaining this to a conservative senator! No onesaid the IDSA has an easy
job — especially when games like Soldier of Fortune II are pushing gore boundaries.

Gamers are well aware that their passion is routinely brought
under fire by opportunistic legislators and simple-minded public-interest
groups. We all cringe when a senator unveils proposals to censor games and
restrict our access to them. And we all shake our heads as yet another TV pundit
laments the content of new games.

But few gamers are aware that a dedicated lobbying organization exists to fight
on Capitol Hill and around the country on behalf of the gaming industry.

The Interactive Digital Software Association was formed in 1994 as a trade
association to defend the interests of game publishers. Its president is Doug
Lowenstein, who has been in the trenches for IDSA since its inception. Along
that road, he’s seen gaming grow from novelty to mass medium, and has fought
many of the battles faced by the gaming industry as it’s suffered through
cultural growing pains.

“The first time I met a congressional staffer who actually played games was a
cause for celebration,” says Lowenstein. “But there were 1,000 people at our
last annual Congressional Entertainment Software Day. So it’s really come a long
way in terms of overall awareness.”
When Senator Joe Lieberman proposed government regulation restricting the
content of games, it was the IDSA that challenged him on constitutional grounds.
When retired colonel David Grossman traipsed the news networks decrying
first-person shooters as “murder simulators,” it was the IDSA that challenged
him to produce any compelling study to back up his outrageous claims. (Which, of
course, Grossman was unable to do.)

“Our day-to-day business is to meet with various [political] decision-makers and
educate them about games,” explains Lowenstein. “We’re working against a lot of
assumptions and a lot of misinformation, so it’s really just a constant process
of educating people.”

As with any other Washington lobbyist, the nuts and bolts of Lowenstein’s job
involves a lot of lunches and dinner parties spent hob-nobbing with government
legislators (made more palatable by an annual salary that, according to industry
sources, is over $500,000). At the Congressional Entertainment Software Day,
IDSA invites lawmakers to a banquet that includes demonstrations of new games
and explanations of the game ratings system. In short, it’s a daily grind of
evangelizing the gaming industry for the nation’s most influential people.

While the IDSA deals with a wide spectrum of issues ranging from piracy to
maintenance of the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB), the organization’s
most significant contribution is to represent gaming among Washington lawmakers
and on the national media circuit.

<font color="#DF0029">OUR SHERIFF IN WASHINGTON</font>

That role means defending games when they’re singled out for attention by
lawmakers. A recent St. Louis county ordinance criminalized the sale of M-rated
games to minors. (The law was specifically tailored to games, and made no
mention of sales of R-rated movies or explicit music.) The judge in the case
ruled that games don’t enjoy the same protective First Amendment consideration
as other forms of expression.

Needless to say, the IDSA was quick to file a brief in the federal appeal of the
St. Louis case. The law was upheld at the federal circuit level, and could
conceivably be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

When California congressman Joe Baca introduced the mightily named “Protect
Children From Video Game Sex and Violence Act” for consideration as federal
legislation earlier this year, the IDSA found itself in yet another political
struggle. Baca was specifically revolted by descriptions of Grand Theft Auto
III.

“When kids play video games, they assume the identity of the characters in the
game, and some of these characters are murderers, thieves, rapists, drug
addicts, and prostitutes,” Baca announced in a May press release. “Do you really
want your kids assuming the role of a mass murderer or carjacker while you are
away at work?”

Baca’s bill would make it a crime for retailers to sell or rent to a minor any
game that depicts “violent felonies.” (Baca apparently doesn’t object to Hamlet,
To Kill a Mockingbird, or the Bible.)

Lowenstein’s strategy for attacking such legislation is centered on three main
drives. The first is arguing the unconstitutionality of legislation such as that
proposed by Lieberman and Baca. The second is to promote the ESRB ratings and
educate the public about their use. And the third is simply to carry on a
tireless effort at championing the artistic and entertainment value of games.

“Most people just hear from someone that GTA III has some extreme violence,”
says Lowenstein. “They have no idea that the game is rated M for Mature, or that
there is even a ratings system voluntarily in place for games. Our challenge is
to make the ESRB ratings as widely known and well understood as movie ratings.
And to show people that our ratings are actually far more specific and useful as
content guidelines.”

Rockstar Games’ VP of marketing, Terry Donovan, says that there were concrete
benefits to IDSA membership when GTA III came under political fire.

“As a member of IDSA, we had access to the statements, testimony, research, and
other materials that IDSA has put together on the industry, its demographics,
the rating system, and the larger issue of violence in video games,” he told PC
Gamer. “These materials, plus the ability to benefit from IDSA’s perspectives
and experience in dealing with general concerns about violent media, were
invaluable to us.”

Despite occasional setbacks, Lowenstein is convinced that mainstream acceptance
of video games/PC games is inevitable.

“It’s hardly surprising that political attacks typically come from a generation
of people 45 and older who grew up with more traditional forms of
entertainment,” Lowenstein continues. “But the demographics are on our side.
Twenty years from now, the people in power in this country will have been and
still be gamers; they’ll have grown up with this stuff.”</FONT>

Seems more like gamers are found guilty and must prove themselves innocent. Early judiciary you say?

UPDATE: Rephrasing the title.

[ 11-01-2002, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Nanobyte ]