This week, California State Senator Leland Yee defends our children — and his own political stance — by answering YOUR questions.
California State Senator Leland Yee has long been an outspoken critic of violent video games and their potential to harm children. He’s no GTA4 johnny-come-lately: having authored a bill to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors in 2005, and openly criticized the ESRB’s lack of transparency in 2007, he continues to warn parents against violent video games with a series of press releases. But in a world where extremists like Jack Thompson hold the media enthralled, his message is often diluted.
Two weeks ago today, we asked GameCyte readers and fellow journalists to pose questions for the Senator, which he agreed to answer on camera. Whether or not you agree with his views, we believe this video serves as a worthy beginning for mature discussions of video game violence, and we hope you feel the same.
Part One:
Part Two:
Interview Transcript:
Moderator: Senator Yee, thank you for joining us.
Leland Yee: Thank you for having me.
M: There’s a series of questions here from the Assistant Editor of GameCyte.com, Sean Hollister. Sean’s first question is, “What is it about video games specifically, as opposed to any other medium that depicts violence, that you think requires further legislation?”
LY: Well, the bill that we had, that was signed into law, is a bill that deals with interactive violent video games. It’s not just any violent video game – it is the interactive nature of these violent video games that are particularly harmful to our children. This is where literally, youngsters are sitting with their computer and pushing buttons not hundred s of times, but thousands – hundreds of thousands of times, whereby their action is coordinated with what happens to a human being, what happens to an individual. So pushing a button will then decapitate someone. Pushing a button will hack of a limb of a particular individual, burn some individual. It is this interactive nature that connects your behavior to a particular consequence that is particularly horrific.
Dan Allen, the editor at AmishOtaku, asked a similar question regarding the early efforts against comic books and communism on Americanism in the middle of the century – even rap music. What is your response to that?
Well, those are not what we call interactive activities. These are what we call passive activities – you simply read something, or observe something, and that’s pretty much it. In these ultraviolent video games, it is the interactive nature where you literally have to do certain things in order to cause a particular consequence. And so, your brain chemistry and your brain – sort of connections — are now set where by doing certain things, you cause certain horrific activities to occur. It is that interactive nature that we’re really trying to get at.
Aside from the violence, is there anything inherent in video games that you find harmful or that parents should be concerned about?
As someone who really supports the First Amendment, I think it’s extremely important that we allow individuals to freely express their art; their passion about how they want to display that particular art. I’m not opposed to any of these violent video games; it is where these games are made available to children that I think is particularly reprehensible.
As a child psychologist, I think that regardless of its interactive nature – but I think all different kinds of medium, parents should in fact sit down with their children, and to talk about what is it that they see, to help them understand the context of whatever the behavior may be, whatever the information that is shared with them, either on TV, or on video games – but our bill was always about the interactive nature of these ultraviolent video games.
And so do you find it appropriate that kids play video games in general, or do you think that they should be doing other activities?
There are good things about video games. They are, in fact, a teaching tool – they are a learning tool for our children. There are ways in which, because of the way the information is set up, you absolutely learn things out of these violent – or regular video games – but also, these ultraviolent video games will teach you things too.
What about sexual content and nudity in video games?
As someone who supports the First Amendment, I think that adults should in fact have access to whatever the material that society deems appropriate. We should not, in fact, bar individuals’ expression and participation in artful presentations of material. But the issue again is not about censorship; it is about not allowing our children to have access to activities, games, that clearly have been demonstrated to have harmful effects towards them.
You’ve been a frequent critic of the Entertainment Software Rating Board; how do you suggest that they improve?
I think there’s two major problems with the ESRB (the rating board): one is that there is a conflict of interest. The money that is used to sustain their particular activity is paid by the industry — the industry that that board is supposedly trying to regulate. So long as you have that conflict of interest, there’s no way that anyone’s going to believe that these rating scores are going to be objective.
Number two, the ratings are not valid; because the way in which you determine those ratings is that you get a snippet of these particular video games. The industry will provide you with some of the information that causes one to rate in a particular way. So, getting the information from the industry; number two, not being able to look at all the content, the rating system is a flawed and an invalid system. It is those two reasons that I don’t believe that the ESRB is accurate for our parents to make some informed decisions about whether or not these games are appropriate for kids.
And do you feel that developers have any responsibility here, or should they be able to develop any game they want?
Well, I believe, again, in the First Amendment, and to that extent they should be able to develop whatever they want to do within the laws of this particular country. But with that said, it seemed to me that again, society has a responsibility to protect our children. Just as we have laws that prevent our children from working 40 hours a week rather than going to school. There are child labor laws. There are many other laws that protect the interests of children, and in this particular case, that’s what our bill was trying to do: protect the interests of kids so that they’re not exposed to these ultraviolent video games.
Alex Mejia from Corona, CA asks, “Considering even the FBI has statistics that show that the crime rate is dropping, even when games such as Grand Theft Auto have increased in popularity, what proof is there that violence in games causes violent tendencies?”
Just because the statistics somehow indicate that there is a drop in violence does not mean that somehow, we have not found a relationship between these ultraviolent video games, and violent tendency along with children. One has to ask the question: when we were looking at some of the statistics about ten, twenty years ago, you didn’t hear about Columbine shootings; you didn’t hear about college students shooting and mowing down a number of their fellow students; you didn’t hear about – in San Francisco, a couple days ago — a first grader, bringing a gun onto campus. It is these kinds of data that suggest that the ultraviolent video games are being used, looked at, practiced by kids, and then during daylight, or during other times, that they actually practice these kinds of behavior.
Timothy Anderson, from Minneapolis, MN, references a book called Grand Theft Childhood in which two Harvard graduates conducted an apparently large-scale study that showed that there was no link between violent video games and violent behavior. What is your response to this?
I haven’t read the study and all that; but in all the psychological literature, there has been a consistent reporting of a correlation between playing these games and violent behavior, so that is undisputed. The question has always been whether or not there is a cause and effect – and when there is a preponderance of these correlational data that suggest a relationship between these ultraviolent video games and violence itself, that we err on the side of safety; we err on the side of our children; and we treat them as causal relationships. And that is the reason why, in a number of jurisdictions, they have used that information to argue why in fact we should ban the sale of these ultraviolent video games to our children.
Richard Pyle from Santa Ana, CA, asks about a game called America’s Army; it’s a first-person shooter game made by the U.S. Government, designed to help the Army recruit. It’s rated T for Teen; it’s as close as a game has come to a murder simulator. Richard asks, “Why is a game like Grand Theft Auto IV – an M rated game – why do you consider [or do you even consider it to be] more of a threat than a game that simulates our own Army’s own rigorous boot camp training?”
We have always been consistent in saying that these ultraviolent video games are what we are trying to get at. It is that ultraviolent nature within a game – that type of technology that helps wire our children’s brains to taking certain kinds of action, and then causing these kinds of horrific consequences of chopping someone’s head off, or chopping limbs off; urinating on someone, setting someone on fire. It is the interactive nature that we’re trying to really get at, and consistently we have said that these kinds of games are not really appropriate for our children.
**************Transcript, Part Two**************
Mark Androvich – he’s the U.S. Editor for Gamesindustry.biz – asks, “With all of the issues facing California - deteriorating roads, high gas prices, failing schools, huge budget deficits - why do you choose to focus on video games?”
Well, we have been focusing on many other issues along with these ultraviolent video games. We have bills to increase the presence of mental health professionals in our marketplace; we have been looking at increasing counseling services to our children in our schools; we have looked at how to unclog some of our freeways in the Bay Area – we’ve done all of that.
But in addition, I think that it is extremely important that we look at other issues that are impacting our kids. When you see [first-graders] carrying guns in the school – when you see a college student frustrated by whatever it may be, taking automatic weapons onto campus and mowing down his or her classmates in the classroom – it begs us to look at really what are the underlying problems, and what are the underlying causes for that. And part of it is that our society now allows our children to really act out these kinds of horrific situations by pushing a button, they have now learned how to kill; how to maim people.
Do you feel that this is the main cause of violence?
No, I think violence is caused by a whole host of conditions. The way in which they were raised; the social environment they were in; all kinds of other things. But in addition to that, you have these games that will literally teach and train: ‘How do you stalk an individual,’ ‘How do you hunt down individuals,’ ‘How do you then shoot and kill.’ It is these kinds of lessons that add on to many, many other causes for violent behavior.
Mark also asks, “Considering how every single legislative to regulate the content of video games has been declared unconstitutional, what makes you think [that the State of California]* can win this battle?”
Well, there’s two reasons: I think that in the court case we had here in California, the court did in fact affirm that the state of California does have a state interest on this particular issue. So they basically have said that the state of California does in fact have a right – an absolute necessity – to look at ways in which we will deal with these ultraviolent video games.
The other is that in this particular bill that we had, it was really narrowly tailored. It was not broad, and it was not vague; it was narrowly tailored, and so as a result, we hope that in the course of that appeal, we will be then sustained.
Do you believe that this is a good way to spend taxpayer dollars – on a long legal battle?
I don’t know of any better way of spending taxpayers’ money than to protect our children, and to protect their particular future. We have youngsters now who are literally being wasted away; we have youngsters who have now distorted their understanding about what is right and what is wrong. And so we’ve got to do all we can to prevent those individuals from falling through the cracks and to help them to succeed. In addition to that, the state of California has a battery of attorneys who have been working not only on this issue, but on many other issues. So we have not really increased the staffing of our attorney general’s office to defend this particular bill, and so we’re not wasting taxpayer’s money; rather what we’re doing is really preserving our children’s future.
Have you heard from constituents on this issue? Is this something that’s really resonating in your community?
Part of leadership is not to just necessarily put your finger in the political wind and see “Well, should I do this or should I do that?” I think that there is some internal compass that I have as to what is right and what is wrong, and as soon as we did in fact surface this particular idea, there have been just legions and legions of parents who have said “Great job,” “It is absolutely incredible that someone has now figured out that we’ve got to do something about that.” When you show these ultraviolent video games to parents and other individuals, they are just horrified that there is something like that available, particularly to our children.
So, there are legions and legions of parents and individuals in the state of California and throughout this country who are absolutely dumbfounded as to how is it that these games are made available to our children and they’re horrified that this thing, in fact, exists.
Brandon Cackowski-Schnell – he’s a contributor for GameShark.com – asks, “How exactly has the ESRB failed in rating Grand Theft Auto IV? The game has an M rating, which means that it contains content inappropriate for anyone under 17. Do you feel that such a game should have an AO (Adults Only) rating?” **
When you look at some of the content you wonder whether or not, in fact, the ESRB rating board looked at the entirety of the content. It’s just unbelievable to me as to how a game gets an M rating when you can basically personalize sexual scenes… you can then personalize killing scenes… when you have these kinds of activities, you wonder how in the world can a game like that have an M, rather than an AO. I think that that speaks about whether or not those individuals who rate this particular game saw the entire game – played the entire game – so they get a full measure of exactly what goes on in that particular game.
There were a number of questions from GameCyte.com readers and GamePolitics.com readers: “Why not just focus on just educating parents?” Are you doing anything to educate parents about the content of these games, and about some of the new game systems that have a built-in feature that allows parents to control what content is actually played?
We did in fact have a bill that talked about the fact that store owners should in fact give more information to parents about the rating system – the goods and the bads of it – exactly what the different ratings meant and the descriptors for the different – so we’ve done that. In an interesting way, our bill actually gives parents a lot more power. What our bill did was to say “Store owners, you cannot sell these ultraviolent video games to children. But adults – parents – if you so choose to, then buy these games for your kids. Then that’s not a problem; you can, in fact, go ahead and do that.”
To some extent, if this law were to be in place, then parents would have better control of these particular games for their children. The kids cannot buy it, but they can in fact go to their parents and ask their parents to purchase it for them, and hopefully through that, there will be a discussion through mom and dad – and the kids – as to whether or not this is appropriate. In an interesting way, our bill really fostered greater parent communication.
A lot of gamers and folks in the video game industry are going to see this interview. Is there anything else you’d like to share with them?
I think that a lot of the concerns about what we’re trying to do is over the top. It is not about censorship; it is not about preventing adults from having access to these ultraviolent video games, it is not about preventing individuals from doing even more outrageous things relative to video game programs. It is really about limiting and restricting the sale of these ultraviolent video games to our children. Absent that, I’m not going to stand in the way of any of the gamers, and any of the game developers, from doing whatever they think…
I do pride myself in supporting and defending the First Amendment, and these gamers have the right to do whatever they want, under the law, and I’m not going to stop them from doing that. All I’m saying — as a parent, as a child psychologist – let’s not go and put these games in the hands of our children. And that’s all we’re trying to say.
And in fact, you’ve authored legislation to promote the First Amendment and speech rights.
We have promoted the First Amendment; there have been a number of bills where we have defended high school newspaper writers and college newspaper writers from prior restraint; we’ve had bills whereby we have protected those teachers that are teaching our children – training our children about the responsibility and the importance of the First Amendment; and we are preventing administrators for going after teachers who are teaching these things to our children.
Senator Yee, thanks for your time.
Thank you.
**************Editor’s Notes**************
* = Mr. Androvich’s original question was modified from its original wording with the material contained in brackets. He did not equate Senator Yee’s bill with the interests of the State of California as a whole.
** = The immediate continuation of Mr. Cackowski-Schnell’s question read, “If so, what exactly is the difference between a 17 year old being able to play GTA IV and an 18 year old being able to play it?” We’ll try to address the unfortunate omission in a follow-up.
Leave a Reply