WHAT’S THE POINT?
Last week Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill designed to prevent children from purchasing violent video games. The bill was drafted by the Speaker Pro Tem, Leland Yee, and it makes it illegal to sell or rent video games that “depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” according to speaker Yee’s office.
The governor, in his latest bald-faced attempt to shore up his flagging base, signed this bill, amidst the increasing din of gossip that he is in negotiations with James Cameron to star in “Terminator 4.” The “Terminator” movie franchise is of course known for its intelligent content, and message of peace and tolerance.
Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of the governor simultaneously trying to increase his “protect the children” credibility, while getting ready to gear up for yet another kill fest, I have to wonder why the legislature actually believes that if we outlaw something it will change the world.
Our politicians love to engage in these Don Quixote games that really serve to do nothing more than showcase the self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy of the people that we send to Sacramento to run our state. Writing legislation that gets headlines but no traction is useful for the re-election campaign, but frankly a waste of paper and time.
To think that we can prevent our children from getting access to violent games, tobacco, liquor, drugs, guns, or sex, simply by writing a law, is evidence of the degree to which we are willing to ignore the obvious realities of the world in which we live.
I say this only because I am aware of how easy it was for me as a teenager to obtain what was the hot drink at the time, Bartles and Jaymes. All I needed to do was find an upperclassmen who was prematurely hairy, get to a seedy liquor store and for the price of a six pack, we had our evening’s beverages.
One need only look at the number of children who are being sent to the various stupidly expensive rehab centers around the country to see that drugs and alcohol are endemic.
The language of the violent video games bill is clearly targeted at those overprotective parents who vote with their religion, but ignore their children. To use phrasing such as “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” is to try and parse an exception that will allow the video game manufacturers to continue producing their product, while allowing the politicians to look like they are “tough on violence.”
I point this out, only because it strikes me as particularly ironic and hypocritical that a state which uses the celebrity of its actor governor to market itself, would then turn right around and introduce, pass and sign a bill that should effectively disallow the video game based on the character he portrayed, to be sold to its primary audience — as he prepares to replay that character.
The worldwide video game industry, with revenues of $24.5 billion last year, over-took movie box-office receipts, and sales are expected to soar to $55 billion by 2008, according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers. With this huge and growing market, trying to put the genie back in the bottle of content control is nothing but a vain exercise.
Like alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex and gambling, the more we try to keep “adult content gaming” away from the kids the more they are going to want it.
Frankly, this is yet another attempt by an overly zealous government to take the role of parenting away from the parents, and punish the retailers, all in a bald faced move to shore up flagging poll numbers.
I find it appalling that the Republican governor, a man whose own history of pot smoking and sexual festivities are well known and publicized, would sign such an intrusion into the personal arenas of individual freedoms and parental rights. For a man whose own personal fortune, much of which came from the fascination of young men with violence, to now advocate such a “non-violent” stance, is shocking.
It is equally distasteful to me that the Democrat from the 12th district would write such a piece of legislation. The Democrats, I thought, were about freedom to choose, personal liberties and are supposed to be the “loony left.” This bill is patriarchal and has no place on our books.
Parents should be raising their children with the morals and values that they choose to instill. Parents should be active in the ongoing monitoring of their children’s activities, whether that be what they read, watch or play. The billboards tells us that being a parent is a lifetime job, and the hardest work you’ll ever love.
If that is true, then government should get out of the way. As a society, the more we abdicate to the legislators to decide, the less rights we have. We cannot look to them for moral guidance.
The governor should do what he does best: be in front of a camera, or on a loft development work site. He should not be bothering about what video games a child can buy or not. The fact is that any kid who wants a “banned” video game will get one. And with the new rules in place, come January, the video game builders are likely to see an upsurge in their sales.
Governing should be about how we provide for ourselves as a society. It should be about public assets such as roads, schools, and emergency services. Its mandate should be to provide for us that which we cannot provide for ourselves. Its boundaries should end where we can take care of ourselves. (David Pisarra (310) 664-9969 or)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 18, 2005. Read the original PDF.