I know, I know, keep politics out of Game Informer. Unfortunately, politics are everywhere; even GIO. There are even government simulation video games, but that's a whole 'nother topic. Lately, all you hear about are debates, how "different" the candidates are, etc. Whether or not the candidates actually ARE different is, again, a whole 'nother story. But what does this mean for us? Like it or not, Obama will get re-elected, or Romney will take over. Each candidate will negatively/positively affect our country (and many other countries) in many ways. But what about video games?
In 2006, an 18 year old in Alabama was arrested for attacking a police officer, taking his gun, shooting him, taking his keys, and taking off in a police car. according to CBS News, he played a lot of Grand Theft Auto. In the article, the "reporter" says many things that makes my heart meter tick away. For example, an excerpt: "Grand Theft Auto is a world governed by the laws of depravity. See a car you like? Steal it. Someone you don't like? Stomp her. A cop in your way? Blow him away." Oh yes, he definitely did just pull out the gender card.
January 7, 2009. Representative Joe Baca of good old California's 43rd district proposed a bill that would require any game rated T or higher to have a label that states, "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behaviour." There have been many studies showing that there, indeed, has been evidence that people have more aggression when playing these violent games. There are also studies disproving it. This issue has been beating dead for years. Most people have heard both sides already, but if you haven't, I encourage you to do just that. Study both sides, and form your own opinion.
But enough about how people back then feel about it. I don't care. What about these two guys? To know exactly how they'll affect the industry, we need to know what the industry falls under.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - First Amendment, United States Constitution.
Ahhh, gotta love the Constitution. Not only does it allow us to believe how we want, but it allows us to think, talk, and act as we want. Let's say we aren't pleased how to government is handling things (oh wait, WE AREN'T), we can say anything we like about it without worrying about retaliation. You like Romney/Obama? Okay, I think they're both flip-flopping hypocrites who both want more government control. That's the beauty of free speech. You can criticize anybody/anything you'd like, and it's your RIGHT to do so. But what does this have to do with video games? Everything! According to the Supreme Court (which has its own problems), video games are protected by the First Amendment.
Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. - Justice Scalia, my hero.
Oh. It's that simple? Well then that means video games are fine! Right? ...right? Let's find out by checking out their voting record. A quick scan of how they view free speech; in alphabetical order!
OBAMA:
NDAA: New Years Eve, 2011. President Obama signs into law the "National Defense Authorization Act," stating that the authority of the president includes the power to detain any person (U.S. citizen, or not) "who was part of, or substantially supported al-Qaeda" or anyone that commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. without due trial, indefinitely. Whoa there.
Anybody that the government deems is a "potential" terrorist can get shipped off to Guantanamo Bay? The ACLU states that "the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war." So if you say something that could be deemed offensive by the U.S. government, they (technically) could haul you off just for saying it.
Take the story of Brandon Raub. He is a 26 year old pro-liberty activist, former U.S. marine, and Virginia resident. He was seized by officials for "psychiatric evaluation" because of some anti-government Facebook posts. Yes, Facebook posts. And while some may not agree with some of the things he said, we can all agree that this should not have happened. A judge eventually ordered him being released, but the fact is; it happened.
HR 347: February, 2012. President Obama signs into law a bill (from a lopsided 399-3 vote in the House of Representatives) that makes it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is. So, basically, anywhere the President is. Now, I've looked around for awhile seeing if this is a legit bill, and it kind of is. A bill like this has been around since the early 70s, but this "updated" version doesn't just say "don't enter restricted buildings," it says "don't protest around a Federal area."
Back to the First Amendment. We have the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Ex, protest. Period.
Hmm... Not looking very promising so far. While some of these things are far from related to video games, we have no guarantee that one day, Congress will be like "Yo, Mr. Obama, we don't like kids playing vidya gayms. Think you could maybe, y'know, restrict 'em a biht? Tanks, brah."
Okay, now onto Romney.
ROMNEY:
"How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror, are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"(2005)
He also said (regarding foreign students who attend college in Mass.) "How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states? Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?"
Yo, Mr. Romney, you should pick up the Constitution and read it once in a while.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Basically, unless they have a legit warrant, the government has no right to spy on us. Peace of mind; it's worth quite a bit. But what does this have to do with free speech? "...may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror..." They'd teach "hate" and "terror" against the country they call home? They'd be that ballsy? And if they are, they have the right to do so, even if they should go back to their own country if they hate it sooooo much...
"I want to make sure that retailers don’t sell adult video games to kids, and I want to make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I’m president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter and make sure that their kids don’t see that kind of stuff coming in on their computer."(2007)
Whoa, a related quote! How exciting! Let's put this into context. Romney, a "staunch" defender of free speech, civil liberties and the like, wants to force computer companies to put a filter on computers that blocks pornography? Hey, I'm all for parents taking responsibility for their kids. But this is a guy that could be our president next year. A guy calling the shots, so to speak. Executive Orders carry a lot of weight, unfortunately, and this could very well happen.
Now before you get all "duuuude, you want kids to be exposed to that at such a young age??" Not at all. Parents should be super involved in what their kids do, not the government. And when he puts video games in the same sentence as porn, I'm not too pleased. To me, that screams regulation on video games. And when the regulation starts, it never ends.
Well. I've strayed off a bit into serious political stuff, but that's alright. It all asks the question: "Is one of these men really going to protect our rights to free speech?" In 3 years, am I going to be able to buy a video game that has some violence, language, etc. without worrying that it was censored by a group in a little room in the White House? I do not know. Both of their records are so mixed that you don't know what they'll do in a week, let alone 3 years.
So. In conclusion, you should decide that for yourselves, I guess. Try to be informed.
