<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1195456>
from which:
<snip>
The California law says exposing youths to video violence could result in psychological harm.
"Exposing minors to depictions of violence in video games, including sexual and heinous violence, makes those minors more likely to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent antisocial or aggressive behavior," it said.
================
These kinds of stories fascinate me.
Not because of the inevitable pro and con arguments -- which, it should be admitted, quickly achieve a fairly predictable orbit ("creative freedom" versus "protecting/improving the culture") -- but because of the lack of focus on the likely consequences.
The stated goal is to keep violent games out of the hands of impressionable youngsters so the minds guiding those hands won't be warped.
This is a solid public relations move, motivated, in some cases, by genuine concern: who, besides the oddly cantankerous, will argue against protecting children?
But will the law, as described in the ABC News piece. really keep 'violent games' away from minors or merely create a few opportunities for Calif. market television "news" outlets to do "shocking, hidden camera exposes" of how some retailers are still selling these gateways to mental unhealth on disk to minors (with the followup story showing heroic police raids). Perhaps we'll also be subjected to programs featuring the tearful, voice altered, siholetted confessions of permissive parents who just couldn't say no when Johnny asked for God of War II.
What games will be tagged as inappropriate?
We can guess that Killzone 2 for the PS3, in which the player virtually participates in a futuristic D-Day scenario and, upon blood thirstily achieving planet fall, joins a squad to kill his way to victory is a good bet for the 'sorry kid, you're too young to handle a type 5 phase rifle' category.
But how about Ratchet and Clank, which is violent, but in a cartoony way, or any of the World War Two themed games: violent? yes, but aren't we celebrating the "Greatest Generation"?. I could go on, but there are many more variations than I have patience to list at the moment.
Who will review and decide? Will children be shuffled into sensory data gathering rooms, allowed to play 'suspicious' games and then, if the responses are deemed disturbing, will those games be red zoned?
Probably not. More likely will be the templating of personal tastes, fears, concerns and preoccupations onto games by decision makers. Sometimes, nearly everyone will nod their heads that yes, games such as Blood Fist/Scream Kill/Death March/Aaaargh!!! aren't good and should be off limits.
But beyond the low hanging fruit, what else will be declared forbidden?
It's been noted, by more sagacious minds than the one I'm currently using, that bueracracies -- and surely, the video game ban bill will create a new sub section -- tend to find things to do even if it's beyond their original mission statement.
What unintended consequences, I wonder, will greet us as this law rolls out?
.d.