If video games equaled violence, we'd all be dead by now. There'd be an army of 9,000,000 GTA-playing killers rampaging through every street in America. The reason we don't have that happening is because games don't cause violence.

Contrary to Dr. Mathews' assertion in the article you've linked, his study is far from the first to demonstrate that the brain reacts to violent games. These studies have gone on for years, on all kinds of media, and none of them have shown any causal link between violent media and real-life violent behavior. Correlative links? Sure; it's no secret that violent people like violent entertainment.

All his study shows, as you're no doubt aware, is that the brain's chemistry reacts to simulated or imagined danger as it would in real danger. That's good for the survival of the species. The brain reacts the same way in dreams, but no one's ever dreamed he was a Viking, then woken up and pummeled his neighbor with a warhammer. The study does not claim, at any point, that exposure to fictional violence leads to actual violence. There's never been evidence for that, and what has been presented as "evidence" for it has been thrown out of court every time.

Here's the tricky part; when studies like this one talk about aggressive behavior, they make no distinction between play aggression (snowball fights, mock karate fights, wrestling, and so on) and actual assault. This is hugely important. Play, mock aggression is a natural aspect of human behavior (not just humans; many animals, such as kittens, spontaneously learn play wrestling when they're a few weeks old). It's all for fun, and there's never an intent to do serious harm — that also applies to adult sports like football.

Every healthy human and animal knows the difference between pretend fighting and real, serious combat. If a child doesn't know the difference, or doesn't care, there's something wrong with that child, and the roots of that wrongness go far, far deeper than any game could ever reach.

Blaming some game, something played by millions without incident, for the actions of anyone who's ever played it is not only simplistic, it's shortsighted. There are real problems out there, real causes of real-life violence. Poverty, drugs, family neglect. Trouble is, no one knows how to solve those things — no one's ever known; they've been around for thousands of years — so people pick scapegoats and go after those, just so they can believe they're doing something. But in the end, all they're doing is drawing attention away from the real problems, allowing those problems to thrive.

This isn't just about games. It's not just a bunch of overgrown kids saying "I wanna play! Leave me alone!" That, by the way, is not at all what real game players are like, stereotypes aside, but back on topic: This is about fighting not just the good fight, but the right fight. Sometimes it seems like America's college scene is its last, best hope; it's where people still want to make a difference, still believe that they can, and try. And it's powerful. Not always powerful enough to slay Goliath, but enough to make him bleed, to show the world that he can bleed. But it's young, it's still finding its place, doesn't always know where to turn, where to focus, where to fire. And if it wastes its power, wastes its effort on something as trivial as games, then it misses whatever chance it has to make a real difference. And that's a chance the world can't afford to throw away.

You're quite the witless wonder if you think that "study" is going to make us sweat. I don't suppose you noticed that the summation of that research was measured in brain activity and not actual real-world behavior. Similar things happen to one's brain when presented with any stimuli, whether it's a good movie, a good book, a video game or an attractive person. I've seen a lot of studies similar to this one cited in the myriad of game regulation laws that the self-serving agenda-driven politicians keep passing, and guess what? NONE OF THEM MEANT SQUAT IN COURT, EVERY ONE WAS STRUCK DOWN. To quote your own article, David Bickham said, ""This is a first step in this kind of research, but it isn't conclusive," he said." Nice work coming at us with a study that the researchers don't even find concrete. Like I said earlier, take my advice and stay out of this battle...unless you LIKE looking stupid...

Oh, and DC...this issue has EVERYTHING to do with human rights, thank you very much. It's called censorship and the 1st Amendment, and in some cases the 14th as well.

Argh ! The half of part 4 was truncated, so here's the conclusion with part 5 (sorry if it's long, but it was necessary).

You know, I repeat it once again, I can agree with you on your main argument, which means that there are games which have nothing to do in the hands of underage kids. But the problem is the way you presented this argument and the way you focused on it taken into a context of mainstream media long-time misinformation and game scapegoating.

One last thing before concluding : you're talking about "a few games" which "teach languages, help with medical conditions or terminal illnesses and improve problem solving or math skills." It makes me give you this friendly advice : next time you have something to write about video games, please forget this distinction between "violent" and "nonviolent" games, or "violent" and "educational" games. Don't draw irrelevant lines between the "few good" and the "too many bad", and start thinking about games in their globality and their long history : adventure, role-playing, strategy, reflexion, action, simulation, sports... Violent or not, that's not the problem (but the gratuitous aspect of violence is, when ther is nothing in the game to remind you that it's, indeed, a game).

This is the end. I hope I could help you understand where you made mistakes, and why you encountered so many negative, and sometimes hostile, replies to your paper (though many ones were constructive to a point). Before trying to control the videogame revolution... try to learn more about them.

Best regards,
Soldat_Louis

Dear Clair,

Until then, I commented your treatment of specific games : "Phantasmagoria", "Bully", and the "Grand Theft Auto" series. Now, I'd like to talk to you about your overall perception of games.

As I've said, expect some mistakes in your description of these specific games, except the wrong example of "Phantasmagoria", and taken "out of context", there's nothing really shocking in this paper...

Unfortunately, there is "the context". What it is, exactly ?

Well, you're too young to remember, but you weren't born yet that there were already video game controversies. If you want to know more, I suggest you to read Gamespot's excellent story about it, titled "When two tribes go to war" ( http://www.gamespot.com/features/6090892/ ). But right now, remember that video games have always been under fire, whether SOME of them deserved it or not, and less because of their content than because they were video games.

And besides, you may not remember it either, but I cannot forget the years of biased and sensationalistic media coverage of video games. And of course, it was hardly about all video games : just the one or two controversial titles of the moment, presented as if it was the only kinds of games available, the only ones that really count. And when their real content wasn't enough, "reporters" invented some more.

Even "Super Mario Bros" was a problem for some "journalists", who saw it as a possible influence for a guy who took pre-schoolers hostages in Neuilly, a Parisian suburbian town, 13 years ago (it was "l'affaire de la Maternelle de Neuilly", or "l'affaire Human Bomb"). I also remember the epillepsy moral panic of 1992-1993, with titles such as "Nintendo killed my son" (The Sun, 1992). In fact, any incredible news about video games was taken seriously, and when some managed to debunk them, it was already too late. Not to mention that the "journalists" who mistook their readers remained unsanctioned and hardly recognized their errors.

And now let's go back to your paper considering this context. It's an opinion paper. Fine (although it's not an excuse for making mistakes). But you start with a title such as "Video games too inappropriate". Ouch ! And then you say that the 83% of homes with children having video game systems is "insane". Ow ! Well, at least, you're charitable enough to concede that there are "good" games (a few games). Whoop-tee-doo. But then you explain the subject of the paper, which is, of course, about "harmful", violent games. You refer only to 3 or 4 games (of course, very controversial ones). And even with such a limited scope, you manage to make mistakes and take one outdated and irrelevant example... Err, what were you thinking ?

Dear Clair,

In this part 3, I plan to talk more particularly about Rockstar Games. Let's start by "Bully".

I haven't played "Bully', but I read some reviews. And indeed, I encourage you to read Common Sense Media's one ( http://www.commonsensemedia.or...Bully.html ). I suppose you already know the media watchdog Common Sense Media, which has been higly critical of video game violence. Here is what they have to say about this game :

"Bully is no "Columbine simulator." (...) those overly concerned about this PlayStation 2 game need not be. In fact, after spending some time at Bullworth Academy, the many missions proved varied and challenging, the colorful and over-the-top characters and dialogue highly entertaining, and the openness of this campus quite liberating. (...) Overall, Bully is a fun, fresh, and lengthy single-player adventure for older teenagers and adults. While the game isn't as controversial as many feared it would be, it will still push a few buttons for its rebellious attitude. But, after all, this is what Rockstar Games does - and does well at that."

Well, it doesn't prove anything, of course, but knowing that Common Sense Media's members cannot be suspected of sympathy for video game violence, actually appreciate this game and rate it for 14-years-old, I think this review is a good answer to your question : "how is a game mixing violence and education appropriate to release directly after a chain of deadly school shootings ?" Another answer is : because this game seems to depict school for what it is sometimes... including bad actions and conflicts with schoolmates and teenagers.

About the "Grand Theft Auto" series, I actually don't have a lot to say that hasn't been said before. In fact, I concede that the kind of parodic "dark humour" used in GTA cannot be understood by everyone, especially younger people. But at least, recognize that you're wrong when you say that "you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex." First, as said before, the sex scenes have been removed, even though I saw much worse on some PG-13 movies. Second, you had sex only with women you dated, and frankly, I've already seen more inappropriate situations !

In part 4, I'll give you some final remarks and I'll conclude.

Dear Clair,

In my previous post, I asked what was the problem with your paper. Here is the time to answer.

First, there is "Phantasmagoria". The killing detail...

It may have been explained in previous posts, but "Phantasmagoria" is an outdated game (1995, which is very old) that you'll hardly find, unless you search it on eBay. For an paper that talks about the present, about the games kids can easily find and could get interested in RIGHT NOW, it's a really wrong example. I hardly imagine a 14-years-old boy willing to take a look to such a mess of digitalized actors, rigid gameplay, linear plot... unless he likes vintage games. But even if this case, there are many other games, contemporary to this one and using the same technique, which are much better ("Under a Killing Moon", "Gabriel Knight 2", etc...).

But enough talking about vintage. You mentioned "Phantasmagoria" because of the rape scene, didn't you ? As you said, "one sequence shows the character getting raped. Games should be used as a means of entertainment or fun- there is nothing amusing about rape. (...) It is not a topic that should be made light of by placing it in a video game."

As you didn't explicitly accused the game of allowing players to rape a woman, I won't attack you on that point. And you're right on the fact that there's nothing amusing about rape. But who said that video games should always be "amusing" ? And why wouldn't it be OK to show rape in an adult game with an adult theme, when it's OK to show them in a movie or a TV-movie ? And anyway, as long as the rape is useful to the plot, and is seen as what it really is (one of the ugliest crimes ever), I don't see where the harm is. This is the reason why you can see rapes even in soap operas. Now, maybe you consider that it's not a good thing to depict rape scenes in any kind of media (TV, movie, cartoon, etc...), but it's not clear in your paper.

Now, there is Rockstar Games and its... uh... games. They'll be the subject of part 3.

Dear Clair Baxter,

Now that things calmed down a little bit, I'd like to give you my own reply to your opinion paper. First of all, as I'm French, I apologize in advance for the unavoidable faults and spelling errors. Now, let's go.

Actually, what's the problem in this paper ?

Your argument ? When you said "My argument is not that good games don’t exist - my point is there are far too many games available in the country doing more harm than we think" ? No. In fact, taken out of context, it's nothing but the truth. "Good" games exist, and there are also many games doing harm.

Your "quite a bit of research" ? When you "came to the conclusion that Rockstar Games has the worst track record for violent and inappropriate video games" ? No. Although a more extended research would show you that there are even "worst" games made by other companies ("Postal 2", "25 to Life", etc...), Rockstar Games created a lot of controversial games : the "Grand Theft Auto" series, "State of Emergency", "Manhunt", "The Warriors", "Bully"...

Your sources ? When you cite the National Institute on Media and the Family ? No. Honestly, you could have chosen much worse. At least, the head of the NIMF, Dave Walsh, has always been respectful of gamers, and since he wrote a column titled "Gamer is not a dirty word ( http://www.mediafamily.org/med...s_mw.shtml ), I can forgive him almost everything, even when he makes false statements, or when he overreacts about a game.

Your claim that "it’s doubtful that they were IDed when buying the game, or that their parents censored the game before giving it to them" ? No. In fact, you make an excellent point. Mature games have nothing to do in the hand of underage kids, so it would be necessary to ID people who by a M-rated game... and it's even more necessary to educate parents so that they monitor their kids' media use much better. It's indeed what the National Institute on Media and the Family has to say in his 2006 video game report card.

So finally, what's the problem ?

Answer in part 2 (in order to prevent truncated comments, I divide my reply into several post)

@dc65416

You said : "It really disgusts me that the most commented piece on this website has to do with video games. I don't understand how people care more about video games than human rights, voting, or education, issues that are discussed repeatedly in The Appalachian. Instead of condemning one another on views of video games, perhaps you should look at how you completely avoid the real issues we face today."

I think you misinterpreted the previous comments. I can talk passionately on a specific topic (in that case, video games), but it doesn't mean I'm indifferent to other topics. Keep in mind that all these comments prove nothing about a lack of interest for other issues. It's just that people replied because they felt Clair Baxter was wrong. If another person from The Appalachian Online wrote something wrong about another issue, I'm sure she/he would recieve many comments too.

The problem is elsewhere : it's misinformation and false statements about video games.

I know that the Appalachian Online talked about many other issues, I've already read other articles, but I haven't seen false statements in them. For example, I don't know if you read the article titled "Torture, lies make for bad politics", dated October 3rd, but I when I read it, I didn't see anything to reproach to it (anyway, I don't expect many people to come in and post comments such as "hey, you're lying !" or "Torture is great, prisoners are all terrorists, Geneva convention is for traitors").

The problem about video games is that it is very easy to misinform. Usually, when someone bashes a movie or a TV program, we can suppose this person saw it before bashing it. But when someone bashes a video game, are we sure that this person took the time to know it ? I don't even talk about playing it, but just verifying its real content...

And things become worse when it's time to talk about video games in general. Right now, the only games which go mainstream are the few ones which are sure to create a controversy : from "Mortal Kombat" to "Doom", from "Doom" to "Grand Theft Auto", from "Grand Theft Auto" to... etc. In fact, 5% of games access to 95% of the time allowed for game in the mainstream media. If ONLY these 5% were treated fairly... but no.

@freedomofthepress :

"Video game = violence" ? Really ?

In this study, there were two groups of video game players : one on "Medal of Honor : Frontline", and another on "Need for Speed underground". Both are popular action games, although the first one is a First-Person Shooter and the second one is about car racing. The result of the study is that those who played the first game had increased emotional arousal and decreased self-control compare to those who played the second one.

One can discuss the methodology of this study. For example, were the two games comparable ? Can we expect more results from an extended study with several kinds of First-Person Shooters ? Or can we study the effects on brain when playing other kinds of games such as strategy ones, sports ones, adventure ones, role-playing ones, etc... ? Anyway I really don't see how you can conclude from this single research that "video game = violence".

Must I conclude from your post that anti-game bigotry increases aggressive behavior and decreases ability to read ?

all right rowdy video game enthusiasts and journalist bashers: please pull yourself away from you X-box monitors long enough to read this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061128/hl_hsn/videogameviolencegoesstraighttokidsheads

Summary:
Studies begining to find ... VIDEO GAMES = VIOLENCE

do you see your twisted world flashing before your eyes? GOOD.

Just to clear up the air on the difference between TV and videogames (there are none) back when the politicians and "scientists" blaimed TV for violence, it was because there was no interaction between the kids and the TV. Basically the theory was that kids would watch TV, become overly stimulated, and thus wreak havoc when they stopped watching (wrong). Now its the exact opposite with video games, because its interactive they are recieving a reward for doing something bad situation. Also wrong.

As for things such as age, gender, political point of view, let me just say this. Take something precious in your life, something that brings you amusement and joy. Then have people lie about it, talk about it in ignorance, and try and destroy it. If it's religion, throw in religion, if it is square dancing, throw in square dancing.

Thus I will leave with an editorial on the Waltz by The Times

"We remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English court on Friday last ... it is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs and close compressure on the bodies in their dance, to see that it is indeed far removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is attempted to be forced on the respectable classes of society by the civil examples of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion."

And here is one by the British paper Belgravia
We who go forth of nights and see without the slightest discomposure our sister and our wife seized on by a strange man and subjected to violent embraces and canterings round a small-sized apartment - the only apparent excuse for such treatment being that is done to the sound of music - can scarcely realize the horror which greeted the introduction of this wicked dance."

@DC

Maybe you should get more of your student body involved. Most of us? We're just people from a site that got wind of the editorial

It really disgusts me that the most commented piece on this website has to do with video games. I don't understand how people care more about video games than human rights, voting, or education, issues that are discussed repeatedly in The Appalachian. Instead of condemning one another on views of video games, perhaps you should look at how you completely avoid the real issues we face today.

“When you really read Clair’s article you’ll realize that her ideas are well thought out and backed with facts. The only thing any of you have done is complain about her opinion. And it’s just that. AN OPINION. if you don’t like it tough. In case you missed the memo, one of the major points of an opinion article is to incite passion, anger, etc. to make people want to read and make them think. I’m sure Claire thanks you for making her job a success. She has inspired a rage in the nerds across this campus and surrounding areas and you have come out in full force, telling all your friends to read therefore the piece has served its purpose.”

If you think Claire’s article as well thought out and backed with facts there is certainly no hope for you. This maybe explains your feeble attempt at trying to refute previous accurate comments. You forget that the 40 commenter’s on this page are also just stating their OPINION. Get over it, if we are making her job a success as you put it then why are you getting your panties all in a twist.

“Finally, there are a total of 250 comments on “The Appalachian” online and as of right now 41 of those comments are from the sad population that are you…the gamers. This is roughly 1/5 of all comments that have ever been posted on the website. (And just so you know, you’re all repeating each other) So maybe you might consider picking up a passion in a topic such as the school you are attending and the events that are going on outside of your dorm room (all of which are covered in this publication, by the way) and learn something as opposed to copying your fellow gaming nerds and the opinions they hash out to every anti-gamer. ”

What a surprise, you ended with another attack. Your last paragraphbrings a huge smile to my face as it just goes to show how passionate gamers are when it comes to protecting our beloved hobby. You tried to use it as an attack, however I am quite proud of everyone who has taken the time to post here to counteract the misinformation and lies.

"if you would do some research you would realize that America's parents have far more to worry about than whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Pac Man are getting kinky with the fruit. parents are not going to regulate this, so the government should."

Parents have more important things to do than watch what their kid is doing? Are you high? Seriously, by that logic, should parents not care if their kids do meth in their basement because they have more important things to do than pay attention to their kids?

"Why are video games blamed for violence as opposed to television?" The same reason that Rock and Roll was. Or comic books.

"The point of games like GTA is to commit crimes in a limited amount of time to make money and earn a higher social status" Have you played the games?

"should this really be the kind of stuff we're making games about?" Should it be the kind of stuff we're making movies/tv shows about?

"commenter's extensive knowledge on a 12-year-old game," Wikipedia and the various people that have played it?

"Not every child that plays GTA is going to steal a car and beat a hooker, but some of them might want to." And some kid who plays Super Mario Brothers might decide it's a good idea to stomp on turtles and eat mushrooms. And some kid who watches House might want to cut people open.

"can you give the same amount of history on the topic of our national government or even one of your classes?" Well, I can. Which would you like, Torts, Criminal Law, Contracts or Property?

"When you graduate college everyone will care about what your grades were, no one will care who had the high score in DDR. " No, nobody will care what your grades are, unless you're going on to grad school-- and even then, as long as you've got at least a 3, and unless you're going to Harvard, most people won't care.

"Granted that DDR is one of the few games out there that provides you vegetables with some semblace of physical exercise." Heh.

"When you really read Clair's article you'll realize that her ideas are well thought out and backed with facts. " Just like everything FauxNews claims is well thought out and backed with facts.

"... Baxter did no research? Can you people even read..."

Where's the research? She got various points incredibly wrong on an opinion piece that she's supposed to be writing for a school newspaper. All she had to do was go (we'll assume she lives in a dorm) across the hall, maybe down a few rooms. Or there is Wikipedia-- as much the info can be misleading or wrong, at least it would show -something-. And you didn't offer anything to that aside from ad hominid attacks.

"I'm really having an amazingly hard time seeing how anyone can justify the mass publishing of any video game with rape, murder, car theft and mass violence. It's just like cigarettes. They may not be appropriate for children but they're marketed to them."

I never noticed an ad on TV for any M rated game on channels that children tend to watch, at times that children tend to watch. But, hey, I could be wrong.

"GTA (since when did this filth desrve it's own acronym?)" Since the crime of grand theft, auto came about, I'd imagine.

"I don't care if it's not supposed to be for kids, you and I both know that video games are marketed to children."
Because college kids, and the Nintendo generation never buy video games and are in no way a huge market for video games.

"However a majority of underage drinkers get thier first taste of alcohol from thier parents. And most of these kids continue to drink at home. So how's that for responsible parenting?"
You're absolutely right! Let's send the kids out to get drunk who knows where so they can drive around without a safe place to go! But, I'm strange and don't drink anymore, so whatever.

"I want to begin by saying the 40 negative attacking and rediculous commenters below need to get a grip on reality. In the fashion of your comments I will list reasons why you are all pathetic. 1.) IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES! Get over it. If you are really upset enough to write several paragraphs about how much you like video games and how much you dislike ms baxter's opinion than you really need to go outside, get some fresh air and join the rest of the fully functioning human race."

What you don't want to meniton is that an astounding number of the human population ARE gamers, and alot of them are respectable members of the U.S., as much as you might not like to think so. What irks us isn't the fact that this is involves video games, but needless censorship to "protect" children from the virtual realities that aren't even meant for them in the first place, something you, nor Ms. Baxter, nor Millie Tollsan, nor Lindsay, seem unable to get into your heads. The attacks on gamers themselves are pointless and insulting to those who do much for the community- a lawyer, a politician, a doctor, a firefighter, a police officer, a teacher, an artist, an athlete, a Customer Service employee, a Drive-Thru cashier- many of these people do play video games, and to lump them all as a sad subculture is like pointing as rock fans and telling them that going to concerts and having a good time is a WASTE of time, even though it's clearly not the case.

"It is on the OPINION page. ms baxter can write whatever she would like to write about because it is on the OPINION page."

Yes, we've already established this. And because the comments option allows us to input our own opinions about her opinion, we're posting our opinions to point out that she doesn't have any facts to back up her "opinion", which she tries to make stand on "fact", which to her means doing no research and either guessing or lying outright.

"She does have some solid facts and you really have no idea if she has played, does play or ever played video games in preperation for this article. By the tone of your messages I assume none of you know her and therefore have no solid data on what she does or doesnt do in her private time."
Don't even try it. You're of the opinion that her "solid" facts come from playing video games. The only "solid" facts she has behind her are the 83% homes-have-consoles comment, and that Phantasmagoria has a rape scene, which she THEN tries to turn around with and says that the game made light of the fact, when such isn't even the case. NOW you're saying that because we're gamers who PLAY these games and have an actual idea of what the games are about, and she's a "journalist", she must have her facts straighter than us. Not going to work.

"I don't even want to think about how much time you all have wasted ranting over a stupid opinion piece...i am sure ms baxter has stopped caring about what you think and has moved on to do bettter things with her life"

Many of us don't like to think how much time others spend in front of a T.V., just watching it, but alot of people do. And I'm certain that whatever Ms. Baxter is moving on and doing, if it is indeed things better with her life, it's not going to do with actual research and good journalism.

“As far as several of the commenter’s extensive knowledge on a 12-year-old game, can you give the same amount of history on the topic of our national government or even one of your classes? Probably not. Maybe the extensive research you put into video games has more use in topics that will matter in your life 5 years from now. When you graduate college everyone will care about what your grades were, no one will care who had the high score in DDR. (Granted that DDR is one of the few games out there that provides you vegetables with some semblace of physical exercise.)”

Again with the Ad hominem attacks, it figures though that you would have to resort to ad homien attacks as your arguments are so very weak. I would like to point out at this point that I am 27 years of age, and not a little kid as you obviously seem unable to grasp. As a college graduate with a National Diploma in Electronics

Wow, and I thought Clair's article was ignorant. You should apply for her job; well, actually the monkey with the typewriter would probably beat you out. On to your post!

1) Sorry, but violent games are not marketed to kids. The commercials aren't on during Saturday morning cartoons nor are they on Nickelodeon. FYI, GTA deserved its own acronym ever since it was recognized as one of the most influential (as far as how games are created) and groundbreaking games ever made. Millions of copies sold worldwide probably had something to do with it, I'm guessing. Also, there are over 30 years of scientific evidence DIRECTLY linking alcohol and cigs to health problems. No such causative evidence exists between games and violent behavior.
2) I'm not sure what time period you were born in, but government intervention in individual freedoms is generally considered a bad thing...you want Big Brother to tell us what games our kids should play? Do you want to censor books, movies and music too? They've ALL been given 1st Amendment protection by the courts. You can't have it both ways and only block stuff you don't like. The Founding Fathers knew that the 1st Amendment was necessary to prevent the govt (or anybody) from becoming the arbiter of good taste.
3) Games are not blamed more than television b/c of the interactivity, they're blamed b/c many can't be bothered to REALLY learn about the games; instead they rely on sensationalistic news reports and reactionary articles to base their opinions. Some experts have even theorized that the interactivity is beneficial b/c it helps the person relieve stress more effectively than watching TV passively.
4) Here's where your post really starts to break down. First, how is our knowledge of other subjects relevant to this conversation? And why are you assuming that we're all 18-22 years old? That assumption, more than anything, reveals how out of touch you are. The average gamer age is 30 years. Also, after I graduated from UC Davis, not a single employer I interviewed with asked me my GPA. They were more concerned with what skills I learned and how I matured as a person. You know, I still had at least a shred of respect for your opinion at this point, but it went to hell once you resorted to name-calling. One half of your big mouth is basically telling us to grow up, and the other half is resorting to immature personal attacks and stereotypes.
5) Just like freedomofthepress before you, you claim that Baxter's article is factual, but you fail to cite any specifics. And yes, it's an opinion piece but that doesn't give Baxter the right to say anything she wants w/o any regard for due diligence. That's the kind of thing that gets you fired in a hurry, but since you agreed with her I'm sure you don't care. I think it's great how you continue to trivialize the gamers and the game industry. God knows there's no career in becoming involved in a multibillion-dollar global powerhouse.

Go drown yourself in your own ignorant prejudice.

“Can you people even read without it scrolling across a video game screen?”

Yes thanks, I must admit I think it helped having a reading age of 16 at just nine years of age. Also just have to say opening an argument with an Ad hominem attack does nothing for your credibility, just a small tip for next time.

“I’m really having an amazingly hard time seeing how anyone can justify the mass publishing of any video game with rape, murder, car theft and mass violence. It’s just like cigarettes. They may not be appropriate for children but they’re marketed to them. GTA (since when did this filth deserve it’s own acronym?) probably looks about as delicious as a cherry flavored cigarette. I don’t care if it’s not supposed to be for kids, you and I both know that video games are marketed to children. PERIOD.”

Trying to compare video games with cigarettes is the most pathetic comparison you could have chosen. Games are speech. Alcohol and cigarettes are not. Alcohol and cigarettes have a wealth of scientific evidence showing the harm that they cause. Video games do not. The evidence does not exist! PERIOD

“Some of you mentioned that parents should be educated about video games. Fair enough. Parents are supposed to be educated about alcohol and cigarette use and keep their children away from it. However a majority of underage drinkers get their first taste of alcohol from their parents. And most of these kids continue to drink at home. So how’s that for responsible parenting? if you would do some research you would realize that America’s parents have far more to worry about than whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Pac Man are getting kinky with the fruit. parents are not going to regulate this, so the government should.”

Regulation laws are likely to give parents only the false impression that someone else is solving the problem for them. There is no legislation that will cause parents to become better parents. Even with the best intentions of legislators, the problem is beyond their reach. As I mentioned in my previous comments the wonderful UK system that actually has regulation laws has been proven to be ineffective, recent publicized reports indicate that it is failing because parents are still buying adult rated games for their kids.

“You bring up the point that video games are no different than television. However, you are the actions and thoughts behind the character you play. You control what they do and how they do it. Why are video games blamed for violence as opposed to television? The point of games like GTA is to commit crimes in a limited amount of time to make money and earn a higher social status, this tells children that these actions are acceptable and encouraged. True the rape scene in Phantasmagoria isn’t by any means condoned, but should this really be the kind of stuff we’re making games about? Kids see this stuff and whether or not you want to believe it they get curious. Not every child that plays GTA is going to steal a car and beat a hooker, but some of them might want to.”

Games are regarded as speech. It has been proven countless times in court rulings, games are protected by the First Amendment. Just like movies and books video games have pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative and are entitled to a similar protection. There is no evidence to support your claim that video games are more harmful than TV because the player controls the action. Until you can backup your statements I kindly suggest that you quit talking about things that you obviously know nothing about.

Yeah I am also having problems posting here. The three posts below from me did not just contain quotes from Lindsay's original comments . It seems to have removed my comments totally and just posted duplicate posts.

Your first statement, an attempt to trivialize video games, is about 20 years behind the times. If VG's are so unimportant, why do they represent a multibillion-dollar portion of the global industry, and why is the average gamer age 30 years old? Second, just because it's on the op page doesn't absolve Baxter of having to make sure her facts are accurate. Third, we all know they're inaccurate b/c we've ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAMES THROUGH. Have you? You say she has solid facts? Which ones? In defending her fallacies you have failed to come up with any reasonable facts of your own. Fourth, it's not a waste of time to stand up for something you believe in. By your rationale, we could just as easily say you've wasted your time defending this hack. Do us all a favor and stay out of this battle of wits since you're obviously unarmed.

You know, the reason that so many people have taken offence at this opinion piece is because it is so offensive.

You only need to look at the negative stereotypes being pushed in both the article itself, and in some of the comments of those defending it to realise that for all the complaining of Bully using Stereotypes, it's nowhere near as bad as the kind you find in real life.

I'm from the UK, one of the countries that supposedly banned Bully (Or Canem Canis Edit as it is called here) and I can tell you first hand that the game is NOT banned. One company, Dixons refused to stock it, and since I was in one of their shops the other day and saw Leisure Suit Larry, an 18 certificate 'comedic porn' game on the middle shelf next to Halo, I think it only serves to prove just how cynical these Stereotypes are getting.

For one, I'd really like to know what 'Virtual Sex' is. We have not reached the 'Lawnmower Man' stage of technology yet, so either I've been doing something wrong with my wife of 17 years or the comment was merely thrown in to make people who enjoy playing Video Games seem even more 'sleazy'.

I respect peoples concerns about Video Games, and I'll even agree, to a degree, that violent games are distasteful sometimes, those I don't like, I don't buy, last time I checked, that was what consumer choice was all about, I'd no more be interested in Phantasmagoria than I would be interested in watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Consider this. When Charles Manson murdered Roman Polanski's pregnant wife and blamed it on the Beatles' White album, did the fault lie with the album or the fact that Charles Manson was a very sick man. When Elvis 'gyrated his hips in a sexual manner', was he really enticing an entire generation, OUR generation, into debauchery and Satanism. And yet that was taken as FACT by people at the time. People, I might add who are about as old as we are now.

That's right people, without care, we could turn into the very people we spent our entire youth trying to stop.

"She has inspired a rage in the nerds across this campus" Oddly, many of the people at my college that played video games were frat boys... Fratboys = nerds?

"maybe you might consider picking up a passion in a topic such as the school you are attending and the events that are going on outside of your dorm room" With 9 hours of homework per class? Not likely.

As to freedom of press or whatever: "It is on the OPINION page. ms baxter can write whatever she would like to write about because it is on the OPINION page" And there's an "add comment" feature, which allows us to COMMENT on the OPINION page. Because it is on the OPINION page.

"She does have some solid facts and you really have no idea if she has played, does play or ever played video games in preperation for this article." - If you can't the premise of the games right when writing an article, no, it's safe to say one didn't play the video games.

"I don't even want to think about how much time you all have wasted ranting over a stupid opinion piece...i am sure ms baxter has stopped caring about what you think and has moved on to do bettter things with her life" And you replied to the mass of people replying when she doesn't care either way, and so you've wasted, what, 10 minutes of your life for ...nothing?

Also, at least the first half of the comments here weren't on here when everyone else commented -- just the first two.

"When you graduate college everyone will care about what your grades were, no one will care who had the high score in DDR. "

Just an FYI, I graduated college quite awhile ago, and I can tell you that NOBODY will care about what your grades were. It's never come up in any job interview and it's certainly not on my resume. Nobody cares about DDR scores, either, but the rest of your statement made me laugh.

Where oh where to begin? You're telling me this is a well-researched article?

Here's a list of factual errors (not "opinions back up by facts") in this article:

1) The rape scene in Phantasmagoria is not interactive in any way. Clair Baxter implies that it is.

2) Rockstar Games does NOT have the worst track record for games with violent content. They're the most notorious because they're the most famous. Anyone spending 30 seconds on Google could have come up with that name. Doing any ACTUAL research would have come up with Running With Scissors, who produce the Postal series.

3) "Bully" is a game about a kid who protects other kids FROM the bullies. I'll assume Clair hasn't played the game or even SEEN it being played. She repeats the same talking points others have repeated over and over again, also without playing or seeing the game.

4) You can not just stay in your apartment in any of the GTA games and just have virtual sex. This is NOT part of any of these games. Again. No research.

5) The 14 and 16-year-old boys who killed someone by shooting into their car certainly did claim they learned it from GTA 3, but there is no such sequence in the game and the courts didn't exactly agree with their claims.

6) There are far more African American characters than just Damon West in "Bully." Again, no research.

This to me is not "opinion," it is an attempt to back up opinion with poorly researched "facts" that Clair got from hearsay on the internet. It's sloppy, shoddy journalism at best.

And to Freedom and Lindsay, I don't think ANYBODY here is denying someone's right to have an opinion and vocalize it. I think we're just telling Clair to get her facts reasonably straight. Telling people to "shut up" and hurling insults like "nerd gamers" in response merely cheapens your positions. Clair has the freedom to state her opinions, and we certainly do, too. Like most would-be censors the door doesn't seem to swing both ways when you're faced with criticism, does it?

I'll reiterate what others have probably said before me:
1) The courts have ruled that video games have 1st Amendment protection. You might want to do "quite a bit of research" on the topic.
2) Nobody here is saying that kids should be able to play Grand Theft Auto, but that decision is not for the government to make.
3) Retailers ARE in fact carding underage buyers. Parents ARE in fact still buying these games for their kids. That's their right to do so, no matter how misguided you or I think that might be.
4) There is not ONE shred of scietific evidence that proves a causal link between virtual and real world violence. Not one. If there was, the courts would have not overturned the half dozen laws restricting video game sales.

I tried to post this to the comments section here to no avail. Please find my critique at the following link: http://gamepolitics.com/2006/1...mment-8648

Can you people even read without it scrolling across a video game screen?I'm really having an amazingly hard time seeing how anyone can justify the mass publishing of any video game with rape, murder, car theft and mass violence. It's just like cigarettes. They may not be appropriate for children but they're marketed to them. GTA (since when did this filth deserve it's own acronym?) probably looks about as delicious as a cherry flavored cigarette. I don't care if it's not supposed to be for kids, you and I both know that video games are marketed to children. PERIOD.Some of you mentioned that parents should be educated about video games. Fair enough. Parents are supposed to be educated about alcohol and cigarette use and keep their children away from it. However a majority of underage drinkers get their first taste of alcohol from their parents. And most of these kids continue to drink at home. So how's that for responsible parenting? if you would do some research you would realize that America's parents have far more to worry about than whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Pac Man are getting kinky with the fruit. parents are not going to regulate this, so the government should.

You're right, we do only repeat ourselves. but that is because most of them are right. I don't agree with the extreme ones who may call her a nazi or bash her for the first. But you both talk about this being an opinion piece. that much is true. but when you say something like this "or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex. " to people who never even touched the game, then you create false thoughts on it. in other words, lying. most of the article is opinion. none of which I agree with.

And Lindsay, you really scare me. you are what is wrong with many people out there. that you think that the government should control video games. if you say they should do that, then they should also control the news, TV, what you eat, what you read, where you go, how you get there. the government is not there to control us, it should never be there to do such a thing. this country is founded on the fact we can choose to do as we wish. all because a few happen to be wronged by something (doesnt even need to be games) doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be aloud to use those things responsibly. it's exactly like how some people fear flying. there are plane crashes yes, but millions of planes fly around the world every week and most of the time none of them ever crash. so why be afraid of it because of ONE instance.

I think you need to look at yourself and wonder if you really want the government to control what you do. I won't be coming back to this website at all because it is old news to me now, but seeing your comment made me want to say something. if you want to reply I suggest emailing me. otherwise you won't hear from me because although this article is flawed, it means nothing to the world and will impact nothing.

>>>Finally, there are a total of 250 comments on "The Appalachian" online and as of right now 41 of those comments are from the sad population that are you...the gamers. This is roughly 1/5 of all comments that have ever been posted on the website. (And just so you know, you're all repeating each other) So maybe you might consider picking up a passion in a topic such as the school you are attending and the events that are going on outside of your dorm room (all of which are covered in this publication, by the way) and learn something as opposed to copying your fellow gaming nerds and the opinions they hash out to every anti-gamer.

>>>You bring up the point that video games are no different than television. However, you are the actions and thoughts behind the character you play. You control what they do and how they do it. Why are video games blamed for violence as opposed to television? The point of games like GTA is to commit crimes in a limited amount of time to make money and earn a higher social status, this tells children that these actions are acceptable and encouraged. True the rape scene in Phantasmagoria isn't by any means condoned, but should this really be the kind of stuff we're making games about? Kids see this stuff and whether or not you want to believe it they get curious. Not every child that plays GTA is going to steal a car and beat a hooker, but some of them might want to.As far as several of the commenter's extensive knowledge on a 12-year-old game, can you give the same amount of history on the topic of our national government or even one of your classes? Probably not. Maybe the extensive research you put into video games has more use in topics that will matter in your life 5 years from now. When you graduate college everyone will care about what your grades were, no one will care who had the high score in DDR. (Granted that DDR is one of the few games out there that provides you vegetables with some semblace of physical exercise.)When you really read Clair's article you'll realize that her ideas are well thought out and backed with facts. The only thing any of you have done is complain about her opinion. And it's just that. AN OPINION. if you don't like it tough. In case you missed the memo, one of the major points of an opinion article is to incite passion, anger, etc. to make people want to read and make them think. I'm sure Claire thanks you for making her job a success. She has inspired a rage in the nerds across this campus and surrounding areas and you have come out in full force, telling all your friends to read therefore the piece has served its purpose.

Then comes the biggest mistake you could have made for any credibility of your post, making fun of gamers using stereotypes. Explain to me when this article became a history lesson. Aren’t we talking about Videogames here? Taking a cheap shot at us because your losing the argument isn't the best way to settle things. It also comes across that you believe in the "its for kids" stereotype as well. The average gamer, if again, you did your research, is well over the age of someone who attends high school or college. As is with other hobbies, lifestyles, and things that in general interest you, you have a great knowledge of the area compared to a person unfamiliar with it. Just because we have knowledge of what we enjoy, that’s bad? You also don’t know any of us, so commenting on what we know and don’t know isn’t the best of decisions on your part.

Since I feel like wrapping things up though, I'll take your last 2 paragraphs and disprove anything written in them in a nice comforting final approach to your misunderstandings. If you understood Videogames at all you would know that basically everything she came up with had no fact, and to further help you with that, read my Truth paragraphs below. It seems you also have an overall hate for gamers. I can't understand why you think the things we do are a waste of time. It angers me, but then I realize we only have one life to live and we choose to live it how we want. One person who doesn’t understand what you do, or even you yourself, shouldn’t bring you down.

I wouldn’t bother to counter this or anyone else’s statements for the sole reason that you'll, in very simple words, look like an idiot. Your going to have to accept that gamers and Videogames are here to stay whether you like it or not, so you might as well grow some knowledge of us and what we do before you attack us again.

Lindsay, you can stereotypically make fun of gamers as many others do, but like we said, you should do some research before you back up anything the journalist has to say. You bring up everything she and everyone else who isn't knowledgeable in Videogames does. So again, I guess I'll have to take time out of more important and entertaining things I could be doing to disprove you.

Why would it be wrong to allow games to be massively published because they have murder and car theft? Every other medium of entertainment allows it. And your claiming Videogames are marketed to children? Show me the last time a commercial for a M rated game was on Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, or any other kids oriented television station around hours they usually view it. You can come back and claim that other stations have done it during normal child viewing hours, but those stations are probably not meant for kids, which then the blame would fall under the parents for allowing their children to watch said station.

Then you say the government should regulate Videogames. Okay, that’s fair enough. But before they censor us, let’s have them censor Movies, television, books and music. All entertainment is protected under the first amendment if you didn't already know that. That means all forms of expression in entertainment, whether it be violence, cursing, or anything else considered "bad" will not be subject to ban or censorship. So it comes down to parents to decide what’s right for their children. You go on to claim that the parents of America have more important things to worry about. What’s more important than your own kids? I'd go back and think that one through.

If you knew history, you would know that many other forms of entertainment have been attacked by the government. Rock and Roll, Comic Books, Movies and other forms of entertainment were looked down on simply because they were new, and society needed something to blame for all its problems, as is what’s occurring now. I’m guessing that’s another thing you didn't research before you posted your misinformed argument.

I want to begin by saying the 40 negative attacking and rediculous commenters below need to get a grip on reality. In the fashion of your comments I will list reasons why you are all pathetic. 1.) IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES! Get over it. If you are really upset enough to write several paragraphs about how much you like video games and how much you dislike ms baxter's opinion than you really need to go outside, get some fresh air and join the rest of the fully functioning human race. 2.) It is on the OPINION page. ms baxter can write whatever she would like to write about because it is on the OPINION page. 3.) She does have some solid facts and you really have no idea if she has played, does play or ever played video games in preperation for this article. By the tone of your messages I assume none of you know her and therefore have no solid data on what she does or doesnt do in her private time. 4.) I don't even want to think about how much time you all have wasted ranting over a stupid opinion piece...i am sure ms baxter has stopped caring about what you think and has moved on to do bettter things with her life

Clair Baxter did no research?

Can you people even read without it scrolling across a video game screen?

I'm really having an amazingly hard time seeing how anyone can justify the mass publishing of any video game with rape, murder, car theft and mass violence. It's just like cigarettes. They may not be appropriate for children but they're marketed to them. GTA (since when did this filth desrve it's own acronym?) probably looks about as delicious as a cherry flavored cigarette. I don't care if it's not supposed to be for kids, you and I both know that video games are marketed to children. PERIOD.

Some of you mentioned that parents should be educated about video games. Fair enough. Parents are supposed to be educated about alcohol and cigarette use and keep thier children away from it. However a majority of underage drinkers get thier first taste of alcohol from thier parents. And most of these kids continue to drink at home. So how's that for responsible parenting? if you would do some research you would realize that America's parents have far more to worry about than whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Pac Man are getting kinky with the fruit. parents are not going to regulate this, so the government should.

You bring up the point that video games are no different than television. However, you are the actions and thoughts behind the character you play. You control what they do and how they do it. Why are video games blamed for violence as opposed to television? The point of games like GTA is to commit crimes in a limited amount of time to make money and earn a higher social status, this tells children that these actions are acceptable and encouraged. True the rape scene in Phantasmagoria isn't by any means condoned, but should this really be the kind of stuff we're making games about? Kids see this stuff and whether or not you want to believe it they get curious. Not every child that plays GTA is going to steal a car and beat a hooker, but some of them might want to.

As far as several of the commenter's extensive knowledge on a 12-year-old game, can you give the same amount of history on the topic of our national government or even one of your classes? Probably not. Maybe the extensive research you put into video games has more use in topics that will matter in your life 5 years from now. When you graduate college everyone will care about what your grades were, no one will care who had the high score in DDR. (Granted that DDR is one of the few games out there that provides you vegetables with some semblace of physical exercise.)

When you really read Clair's article you'll realize that her ideas are well thought out and backed with facts. The only thing any of you have done is complain about her opinion. And it's just that. AN OPINION. if you don't like it tough. In case you missed the memo, one of the major points of an opinion article is to incite passion, anger, etc. to make people want to read and make them think. I'm sure Claire thanks you for making her job a success. She has inspired a rage in the nerds across this campus and surrounding areas and you have come out in full force, telling all your friends to read therefore the piece has served its purpose.

Finally, there are a total of 250 comments on "The Appalachian" online and as of right now 41 of those comments are from the sad population that are you...the gamers. This is roughly 1/5 of all comments that have ever been posted on the website. (And just so you know, you're all repeating each other) So maybe you might consider picking up a passion in a topic such as the school you are attending and the events that are going on outside of your dorm room (all of which are covered in this publication, by the way) and learn something as opposed to copying your fellow gaming nerds and the opinions they hash out to every anti-gamer.

"And your mention of the First Amendment- to defend your stance on why Clair should not write what she did in her commentary- is perhaps the most ridiculous thing you say. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech-- its why, as the JOURNALIST in this situation, Clair can, should and WILL CONTINUE to write OPINION pieces on whatever she wants."

Yes and no. She can write whatever she wants, but if she doesn't back up her opinion and conjecture with cold, hard facts, her credibility is shot. And without credibility, she has no business calling herself a "journalist." (For the record, responding negatively to an article is also protected under the First Amendment - as are any negative responses to that response, and so on. Clair's FA rights are only threatened if someone calls for her article to be censored or pulled - which nobody has.)

Ignoring the chilling notion that a so-called "journalist" appears to have no working knowledge of First Amendment law (its protections do apply to games and violent media) and is advocating government censorship, this piece fails to meet even minimal standards of due diligence for reporting - which need to be met whether we're talking news or editorial. "Opinion," in the context of newspapers, is not "I say whatever I please." You are not writing a letter to the editor. This is opinionated reporting, and the author must be able to support his/her points with whole, undisputable facts.

For the record, Clair, an afternoon spent scouring the Web does not qualify as "quite a bit of research." Had you taken some time to have actually played the games in question, or perhaps even interviewed people who had played them to completion, spoken to the critics of the games or even made an effort to contact Rockstar or, I don't know, actually learn the CONTEXT of Phantasmagoria's rape scene - a rape scene in a horror game that carried the equivalent of an "R" rating, I might add - then THAT might have qualified.

As it stands, however, your arguments are full of holes and your credibility is nil. GTA allows you to have sex with anyone you want in your apartment? Please. Not only is it clear you've never so much as seen the game, but you didn't even bother to do "quite a bit of research" (or a quick Wikipedia search) into the well-publicized controversy surrounding the hidden sex scenes in GTA: San Andreas.

And for the record, Damon is far from the only African-American character in Bully - there are African-American preppies, African-American nerds and an African-American teacher, among others. They're all grouped into convenient cliques, yes - but since the game is about navigating, and eventually transcending, a rigid high-school hierarchy, that's sort of necessary.

If you'd watched the game being played, you'd know that. But you didn't, and you instead assumed that being the only black character you saw profiled on the Bully site made Damon the game's only black character. Here's something you'll hear at every newspaper you'll ever work at: when you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me."

That may sound harsh, but I assure you that any potential employers at newspapers post-college will be far, far harsher if they see something like this under your byline. You're free to write whatever you want, certainly, but if you plan to make a career of this, I would strongly caution you to stop using the Web as your sole source and to make sure you've got ironclad facts behind you the next time you go to print with potentially controversial pieces.

And then theres Bully, the most misunderstood game in existence only because of its title. Because of all of this, I think I'll take every single thing you said about it and put the facts on the table, as I've been doing this whole time. Bully takes place in a boarding school, not a prep school. The "main character" which you've been calling him who has a name that you've failed to use probably because you don't know anything about the game, is Jimmy Hopkins. He does fight classmates, but the ones he fights are the bullies, so through his actions they'll stop bullying other kids. If you hit anyone outside of a mission, you'll get in trouble and school authorities will aprehend you. You don't "make-out with townies" as you put it. Once you assist a female character, they begin to like you and you can kiss then for a health bonus. Since when has kissing become a bad thing? Don't teenagers, and people of all ages kiss people to show affection? You also don't disrespect teachers, you help them with any problems they may have. For example, the art teacher is going on a date, so you go to town and pick up the items she needs such as perfume and a dress so she dosen't have to. So now helping people and doing good deeds is a bad thing? The pranks end at the beggining of the game after chapter one, and any prank after that is against a bully. The stereotypes you talk about are also there because the game is social commentary. Every group of people (Nerds, Preps, Jocks, Greasers) are a image of what society catagorizes them as. Then you go on to say the only african american character is good at gym and thats a bad stereotype. He is part of the jock group in the game, so hes obviously good at gym. Guess you left out the fact one of the teachers is african american too, and so are some of the towns people.

After all I have gone through, whould you still bash games as you just did? Most Likely. One person alone can't change the mind of another, but it would be in your best interest as a journalist to listen to what we have to say, learn the facts then come back and make a well informed article. I took time out of my life to inform you, now it's up to you to learn the truth.

Millie, It is clearly obvious you, just like this ignorant journalist, know nothing about Videogames, so offering an opinion about something you don't understand isn't really valid. Trying to counter a gamers opinion, who in some areas does not provide opinion at all but indeed fact about Videogames, is also a petty attempt to further your lies and misunderstading. But I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to put the journalists lies to rest.

To begin, lets start with Phantasmagoria. If you were a gamer as we are, you would understand that such a small precentage of games contain rape, that your chances of playing games that contain it in your lifetime are as good as aliens invading Earth, Godzilla rising from the seas of Japan, and the sun suddenly imploding all at the same time. Sure Phantasmagoria had a rape scene but it was unplayable. You mearly watched, which brings up another funny little thing I should mention. Isn't there rape in movies and about all other mediums of entertainment? My god, there is. I wonder why games are singled out.

Which then moves to GTA. Having played GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas I can say for fact that you can't "just sit around an apartment and have sex". Your apartments are for saving your progress and healing yourself. The only sex you have in the game takes place in cars, and all you hear is moans. The characters sit in their seats as if nothing is happening. As for the other things (except drug dealing, which isn't in the game at all or makes up way less than 1% of what you do in the game), sure their in there, but the game is rated M for Mature which means it is not recommended for children under 17. The key word is recommended in that sentence. Parents can choose to let their kids play Videogames of any kind with any kind of content because it is a constatutional right as an American. You can't ban something or control it as you say, for the sole reason being you just don't like it.

...are you thoroughly embarrassed by now? You and your article have just been reduced to a smoldering pile of ash and your only supporter has been unceremoniously thrown out on her ear, having not heard from her since comment #2, and you not at all. If you're keeping score at home, so far it's Gamers 37 : Clair Baxter 1. This is what happens when you write about things that you didn't bother to adequately research; you only look foolish and uninformed. My fellow gamers have done a fine job of taking apart your op-ed piece by smoking piece, but I do want to encourage everyone who posted to continue to keep an eye on you; because if you continue to publish tripe like this, know that we will always be right there to give you the torching you deserve.

Firstly I just have to point out that the Phantasmagoria game, which, by the way, was released way back in 1995 already had 18 BBFC & Mature ESRB ratings. This is clearly not a game for kids and there are various descriptors on the games packaging denoting the levels of blood & gore and vulgar language included in this game.

If you've played this game, you know that there is an abusive sex scene in Phantasmagoria, between the main character and her husband - this was completely consensual. He was possessed at the time and it was very rough, giving it the impression that it was rape.
It's one of the cut scenes, not something the player had any control over but is important to the plot. This abusive sex scene was not condoned by the game, not by any stretch of the imagination. The main character the players are identifying with is the victim of the abuse, not the abuser. There are lots of things to blame this game for, its awful acting, substitution of gross goriness for actual suspense, but the encouragement of spousal abuse is not one of them.

Claire Baxter also likes to throw out National Institute on Media and Family quotes and statistics like they have meaning. She should instead concentrate on the real statistics. Statistics like those provided by U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, true government data on crime as used by the FBI. She would see that youth violence is currently at historically low levels, and around the very time of Phantasmagoria's release, youth violence had already started it's decrease. We are now currently at the lowest it has been in a good thirty years.

The average American video game player is 33 years old. The average game buyer is 40 years old. She needs to realize that Video games are no longer kids toys but are enjoyed by both children and adults alike.

Claire should also be made aware that the UK system that she recommends that the US follow more closely has been proven to be ineffective, recent publicized reports indicate that it is failing because parents are still buying adult rated games for their kids. The time, effort & taxpayers money wasted creating legislation would be better spent educating the parents. The US already have a voluntary system the ESRB which does much more to inform and educate than they have in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4118270.stm

As far as Claire's views on Rockstar and GTA goes - anyone interested in finding out the truth behind hot coffee sex scenes in San Andreas should read this statement issued by the GTA modders themselves.
http://www.illspirit.com/press_release.html

"It is also apparent that Bully stereotypes each character, ingraining those who play the game with the “high school hierarchy” even further."

You should have a talk with your cartoon artist, if you believe re-enforcing negative stereotypes is so horrible.

Actually, Bully isn't the most ideal example of a game harmful to kids. The main character faces consequences for his actions, even things like staying up too late or skipping class. It's true that violent games don't belong in the hands of children, but ill-informed opinions and gross generalizations don't belong in the hands of journalists.

Claire is lying and making up the plots of these games.

Those who use their freedom of speech to criticise others using their right to freedom of speech will be criticised. That's freedom of speech for you. Great isn't it.

16 year old murderers are not usually considered a reliable source of information.

The rest of the world makes the more sensible decision to ban guns.

What would be a sane proportion of households with video games systems?

If games are so bad, shouldn't we also be looking at the harm caused by television? What about books?

The "Hot Coffee" mod that Clair talks about, the one where you just lie around and have sex...CANNOT BE ACCESSED WITHOUT A MOD TO THE PC VERSION OF THE GAME OR AN EXTERNAL THIRD PARTY CHEAT DEVICE ON THE CONSOLES. Wasn't yelling, just capitalizing to get the point across. You cannot access the content in the game without doing some kind of hacking because Rockstar knew they messed up when they made that, so they disabled to program.

Also, Bully is a open-ended game. Sure, you CAN bully students. But the main storyline behind Bully is sticking up for the weaker kids and stopping them from being bullied.

And no, 8 year olds should not be playing GTA or any M-rated game. That's what the ESRB is for. It's not the fault of Rockstar or anyone else that parents are incapable of raising their kids, so they sit them in front of the TV with whatever they can find so they don't have to be parents. You ARE carded for M-rated games and you ARE denied if you aren't the appropriate age. Is it the game companies' faults that little Johnny gets ignorant mommy to buy him GTA, then she gets mad because she wasn't smart enough to research, or even read the content label on what she was buying?

In conclusion, I don't see why GTA gets such a bad rap when Mortal Kombat has been around for much longer and is much more violent. Oh yeah, that horse was beaten to death long ago. Gotta stick with the popular titles where you don't have to do any real research, you can just google "violent video games" and get the current witch hunt victim.

It's also a fact that nearly 100% of houses with children own a TV, on which you can see anything from Sesame Street to Saw. The responsiblity for what your children watch or play is ultimately down to the parent.

Both the Movie and Game industry have a voluntary rating system that is designed to help consumers, in recent tests, the Video game industry scored noticeably higher than the movie industry in not selling or renting products to underage buyers.

If we start stamping down on Video Games what's next? After all, there are plenty of movies, which are also rated according to their content, and yet Teen-wolf 'encourages Car-surfing' and 'obtaining alcohol through menaces whilst underage', Ferris Buellers day off encourages 'stealing and trashing your father car', they are both considered suitable for teenagers, it's easy to do if you want to look at things like that. After all, even the Holy Bible contains scenes of genocide, rape, incest etc, should we remove that from the shelves for containing 'unpallatable messages'?

I can't add much more than what evilgamer has said. Your reactionary and outdated editorial might have had a place in 1995 (when Phantasmagoria was released) but not in 2006. The theory that there is a direct correlation between video games and violence has been disproved many times over in the last eleven years.

While Rockstar does produce controversial games, even the most casual gamers or observer knows that your descriptions of both "Bully" and "GTA" are grossly incompetent. "Bully" is in fact about standing up to and defending yourself from bullies. It is not about being a bully. "GTA", while having clearly rated and defined violence (for parents to censor their own children), is not a sex simulator. The Hot Coffee incident (which was isolated and extremely difficult to unlock) is what I'll assume you are referring to. Rockstar was heavily fined, forced to recall all copies of the game and reissue a version without Hot Coffee. And, it should be noted, the content in Hot Coffee was not only less than what kids are exposed to on network television (or the internet) it was laughably over the top.

The problem is not the content of video games. The problem is the lack of parental supervision. Parents, on the whole in today's America, don't want to supervise their kids. They want TV, schools and the government to do so. I've worked in video game retail for years and have always enforced the ratings for children (despite your uninformed claim). I can't even count the number of times I have described to a parent, in graphic detail, what is in a game like "GTA" and they shrug their shoulders and buy it anyway. People like you cry for the banning of video games yet you overlook any parental responsibility. Just like movies, games have obvious ratings on them.

It is up to the parents, not the retailer (beyond their responsibility to enforce ratings) or the government, to monitor what their kids watch or play. I constantly see parents taking their kids to see (or kids sneaking in or renting on DVD) brutally graphic horror movies like "Hostel" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" so where is your outcry on that? Why do you not call for the banning of violent movies? I can tell you why: video games are the current whipping boy of an uninformed, reactionary media. You are simply using the latest hot button issue to garner ratings. I highly doubt your uniformed editorial would have gone beyond readership of The Appalachian if you hadn't picked video games to rant about.

One would assume that an Associate Editor for Online Operations would do a little research online before publishing such nonsense as this editorial. Then again, perhaps that is why you are only an Associate Editor.

"Games should be used as a means of entertainment or fun- there is nothing amusing about rape."
Really? Who gave you the power to decide that? What about movies, books, music? Are they also entertainement? If so is not also inappropriate for them to deal with "adult/mature" themes? Video and computer games are a new medium with entirely new possiblities for presenting stories and experiences, as such they should be allowed to tell the same (and different) stories that other media can tell.

"According to the Rape, Abuse

Phantasmagoria? This is a game that came out in 1995. That's a great example of journalistic research you've got here.

As far as games being "entertainment" go, they certainly can be. However, just like movies or books they can be used to tell engaging and complex stories. Rape occurs throughout modern and ancient fiction. Should we begin controlling sales of The Bible because of its violent and sexual content?

By advocating control of video games, you are doing just that.

How about this: parents should educate themselves as to what their kids are doing and playing. The role of raising children is the job of parents, not government watchdogs.

(By the way, the laws you're advocating have already been found unconstitutional in 4 different jurisdictions with several others about to be shot down by the coursts. These laws violate the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.)

As for my username, I'm sorry you missed the point. It was the original article that implied most non-educational games are "pure evil," not me. Maybe they'll cover sarcasm in one of your classes next semester. Good luck with that.

Do I think rape is a bad thing? Of course I do. I also think it would be a bad thing to pass a law saying no one is allowed to speak about rape, or feature it in the plots of movies, television shows, books, or games. (You obviously missed my point -- please re-read my original comment if you still don't get it.) As for reviewing the plot of a movie, TV show, book, or video game, I suggest you leave that to people who have actually seen the movie, watched the show, read the book, or played the game.

As for why the author is lying, you would have to ask her. As I said, maybe it has something to do with a desire to back-door the First Amendment and promote legislation that would restrict free expression in video game narratives ("The video game revolution is here -- we need to begin controlling it"), but that's just a guess. How do I know the author is lying about the plots of these video games? Because I have actually played through the plots of the games she's lying about.

I would not be surprised if the author continues to publish her opinions, and I completely support her right to do so. If she continues to publish lies and half-truths, however, I hope her readers will continue to call her out on it, as I attempted to do in my original comments. Again, I think you missed the point: if we ignore First Amendment protections for one form of free expression, we threaten First Amendment protections for all forms of free expression.

Children do need guidance, but from their parents -- not from some half-cocked op-ed piece. I don't need NIMF to tell me which games, movies, and books are or not appropriate for my family. I don't need the government telling me which bedtime stories my children may or may not legally enjoy. I certainly don't need any more misinformed tripe from blindly self-righteous wannabe social engineers.

As for that whole "honesty and openness" thing, which game is it you say my children are playing, that allows the main character to shoot and rape people? I pay close attention to the games my kids play, and I don't recognize that one. Please provide the title of the game you reference -- unless you're pulling a "Clair Baxter" and just making things up.

"Evilgamer- are you seriously going to sit there and say that Clair is MAKING UP the plots of these games? Why would she LIE about it?!?"

Uh, yes. She is. For example:
"For those of you unfamiliar with GTA, players are issued a male character that runs around a city committing crimes and creating mayhem.

You can choose to accomplish your missions, which include drug deals, hiding from the police, beating up prostitutes and of course hijacking a car, or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex."

You "lie around in your apartment" and "have sex with whomever you please"?! Either Claire has never seen GTA and is just making it up as she goes along, or she is aware that this is a total lie. There are no "missions" which involve "beating up prostitutes".

If Claire had a point, do you think she could make it without inventing things and exaggerating about what's actually in the games she's talking about?

Phantasmagoria, by the way, was a 1995 game that's been out of print for a decade. And so what if it had bodgy content - there are bodgy films, too, but you don't dismiss the entire medium. (Or perhaps you do, I'm not sure how much of a fundamentalist nutjob you are.)

The only recent game you've listed, Bully, is actually about a character fighting back AGAINST the bullies, and standing up for those who are bullied. He's a mischievous imp, sure, but he's not evil.

Essentially, no-one with any familiarity with any of these games would be persuaded by your exaggerations and half-truths for a second. But they're not your audience. Your audience is people who have no experience of the medium beyond Tetris (if that) and are therefore easily swayed by whatever outlandish claims you make.

The same claims your parents made about Television and Rock and Roll. And theirs made about Moving Pictures. And theirs made about, I don't know, the racy novel or something.

I'm staggered that you're actually a professional "journalist" and could pen something so ridiculous. Shame.

I just want to point out a few things here. I do not believe there was any research done on this article. No real research, at least. I do not call hoping over to gamespot.com research at all. So a 14 year old boy said he learned to shot a gun into someone's car from GTA3. Interesting, I do not remember GTA teaching me how to use a gun, unless perhaps that kid somehow rigged a gun to be controlled with a playstation remote, but where did he learn that? Then again that's not possible. Besides a murder could say demons made him do it, does that mean we should believe him? As to why Ms. Baxter would lie about the plotlines, Millie, I do not think she would. I just do not think Ms. Baxter knows anything about these games other than what she has heard people say about them. Hearing people talk is not research nor does it mean the information is correct. She should have played the games herself, followed the storylines and seen everything herslef. As for how a 14 year old got ahold of a M-rated game, bad parents. Parents can find out what games a kid owns in their own house. What if their kid plays it at a friend's house? Well, the Parents should know what games, movies, and other things are avalible at a friend's house. Tell that kid's parents what games you allow your kid to play (be it E, T, or M). If they don't complie, your kid does not go there. Simple. Parenting, that's what it is called. Bully being rated T is fine for the content of that game. GTA is rated M and that is fine for adults. Some games teach, like you stated Ms. Baxter, but that does not make them the only "good" games. Games can teach, but they are also meant to entertain, tell a story sometimes or just be mindless fun at other times. Anyway, to wrap this up, please do better research before you write. Also, I think it does matter in an article like this when you talk about a game that was released over 10 years ago and do not state that information. Phantasmagoria is not even produced anymore, no one can easily get that game. Check your facts, give all the information, and your article will be far more respected and imformitive while also standing strong against detractors; though the topic of this article is doomed to fail in some degree.

"Evilgamer- are you seriously going to sit there and say that Clair is MAKING UP the plots of these games? Why would she LIE about it?!?"
Because you'll believe her, possibly?

"But so in your idea of a perfect, honest and open family, your 8 year old children will be shooting people and raping women through a video game?"
I'm going to try and make this and blunt and unsubtle as possible, because I'm tired of hearing it. THERE IS NO RAPE IN MAINSTREAM VIDEO GAMES. THERE IS NO RAPE IN MAINSTREAM VIDEO GAMES. THERE IS NO RAPE IN MAINSTREAM VIDEO GAMES. The game in question (Phantasmagoria) was a terrible, terrible turd of a game published in 1995 and been out of print for a decade. To this day, no matter how much Joe Lieberman and Jack Thompson want it so, must I say it again, THERE IS NO RAPE IN MAINSTREAM VIDEO GAMES.

Phantasmagoria... a name no one can spell and even fewer people played. Phantasmagoria is a game comprised of movies, many movies. The game was split across 7 different disks.

Now, something i need to ask of the author. Please. PLEASE. get you facts correct.

If i install Grand Theft Auto 3, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, play each one from beginning to end doing every single mission, every single thing I could do. Then i went and installed each patch put out by the developer and repeated this process for each game and every version of the game, I would never see my character having sex with someone. If I sat around my apartment I could look at my pretty couch and I could run over the little floating floppy disk that lets me save my game. The would be the most exciting thing i could do.

Honestly if you had done any "Research" you would have found the postal series. Like any industry you have those who go out of their way to push the limits and anger people. However like Phantasmagoria, its sales were dismal. However movies like Hostel and Saw, which has managed to go for a 3rd movie, go unnoticed by you.

As evil gamer stated, Phantasmagoria does not and cannot run on any of the game consoles. To be more specific it can not run on a Xbox, Xbox360, Playstation, Playstation2,Playstation3, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Nintendo Wii, Sega Genisis, Sega Saturn, Sega Game Gear, Sega Dreamcast. I could name many more systems it will not work on that fit under the definition of "Game Machine". Most PC's made in the last few years would have trouble playing this game.

To put it succinctly, Phantasmagoria was a very very very, bad example, one that only serves to detract from the authors argument, which is already very frail.

The author also disregards the fact that said rape scene is not presented as a funny or a good thing. It is presented in the same way that a rape scene in a movie is. A plot point, something meant to drive the story. If this is acceptable in a movie then I see no reason why the author should take offense, especially considering the fact that the scene is just that, a movie.

Considering the huge number of games I have played, I have never played a game where my character raped another character, or a rape was presented as a good thing, or something funny. Your assumption that phantasmagoria did is highly stereotypical. Not everything in a game is funny, fun, or entertaining. Just like every book and movie, things that happen in the story are meant to evoke an emotion from you. Games have story, they can range from happy to sad. They can have gritty or upbeat stories.

People like the author are the same people who would prevent the growth and maturation of video games as an artistic and storytelling medium.

Sincerely,
Another First-time/Last-time Reader

I will try to write this comment as sincerely as possible. This article is written with much ignorance of the video games industry and of video games themselves. One of the first things I noticed was this line:

"For those of you unfamiliar with GTA, players are issued a male character that runs around a city committing crimes and creating mayhem.

You can choose to accomplish your missions, which include drug deals, hiding from the police, beating up prostitutes and of course hijacking a car, or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex. "

Yes, Grand Theft Auto allows players to steal cars, kill people, and commit other crimes. But, the games themselves do not allow you to have virtual sex with whomever you please. They allow you to pretend to have sex with a prostitute and there is no sex whatsoever shown when you do so. There is a possibility of having sex in one Grand Theft Auto game, but this is only possible with a mod (content that was not added in by the developer).
Also, the game Phantasmagoria has a M (for Mature) rating. This clearly means the game is for people over the age of 17 and is in no way meant for anyone under that age. The writer seems to be under the impression that all games are children's toys, which they are not. Only games made for children are suitable for children. Also, by saying that rape should not be included in a game (in the case of Phantasmagoria it is part of the story) it is equal to saying that rape should not appear in books, movies, or any other form of entertainment. By the way, in the game Phantasmagoria, a player can not actually commit the rape, it is only shown in the game.
The real issue with all forms of media is what parents allow their children to see and look at. Parents need to be aware of what is contained in a video game, and the easiest way to do so is to look at the ESRB symbol on the box. It gives clear warnings of the worst things contained within a video game. Also, most stores have a policy in which you must be of a certain age to buy a certain game (example: 17 for M for Mature games). A parent would have to be present to allow the child to purchase the game and once again, it is the parent's responsibility to filter what their children are exposed to.
I'll be completely honest here, your last line: “The video game revolution is here – we need to begin controlling it “ is completely insulting. You can't censor and control everything that you dislike in life, it just doesn't work. If you wish to protect your children, than please be a savvy consumer and understand what it is your children are playing and don't blame it on the people developing games for people who genuinely enjoy playing them.
Sincerely
Kent,
Editor of VoodooZine.com

Millie,

In evilgamers defense, his choice of username could simply be a portmaneu of gamer and 'evilavatar', the name of a website that aggregates gaming related news. It could also be an atempt at humor.

In response to your first point, I would probably not want any child under my care play Phantasmagoria. But I would also not want that child to watch The Shining, read Catcher in the Rye, or view Picasso's Guernica. It's a question of maturity; But by the same token, I would allow access to those media to a teenager who had proven his or herself responsible enough not to emulate everything they see. The question is, on whose head does the responsibility fall for protecting the child? I tend to believe that it's the parents' responsibility, since I would feel that way about any other media.

As for the lying question, I don't think he was saying that she lied about the plots, but that she was committing a lie of ommision by picking and choosing her examples, and not comparing them to other relavent art forms.

The first amendment statement refers not to the authors' right to have an opinion piece published, but to the implicit assumption that certan media should be regulated to a non-free speach status. Also, the statement could be referring to her call to regulate a media when no others are rated by government bodies. Further still, the author claims that rape is never amusing, and therefore can never be included in game narratives.

As for the author's points, Bully may allow for a variety of expulsion-related (at worst) actions, but it also allows the protaganist to best the crooked administration in it's ficticous reform academy. There are a number of "escort" missions in the game that put you in the role of protector of the meek. The game also has numerous punishments if you skip the in-game classes. In addition th all that, it's one of a very small number of games that allow you to chose between a male or female love intrest. Best of all? No guns. It does contain only one steriotyped black student, but so do numerous movies and books.

The Grand Theft Auto series does push more moral boundries than Bully, but it's also rated Mature, indicating that it shouldn't be sold to anyone under eighteen. The GTA series, while it affords the player the narrative freedom to do what they want, contains several storylines about revenge and redemption. If anything, it is comparable to The Godfather or Seven Samurai in it's focus on the protaganist's self destructive ends.

The defense that "videogames made me do it" is a popular one today. Almost as popular as blaming television for crime in the eighties. As for how a fourteen year old boy managed to get a mature rated game; Talk to game retailers sometime. They will tell you how they are required to explain the rating system to parents who dont care because the parent assumes that any game must be safe for children.

I disagree with evilgamer though in that the author's biggest mistake was assuming that the rest of the country also has her values system. It is my opinion that the author's biggest mistake was to criticise media that she has never viewed/watched/read/played. A smaller mistake would be assuming that all games are played by children.

5."" It’s just a game,”...blah, blah, blah. In 2003 a 14 and a 16-year-old boy fired into a car in killing someone, which, according to gamespot.com, they claimed they learned from GTAIII. Whether you believe that they came up with the idea from GTA or not- they should not have been playing a mature-rated game in the first place. Mature rated video games are suitable for persons 17 and older and may contain mature sexual themes and intense violence and language. So how did a 14-year-old boy get a hold of one? It’s doubtful that they were IDed when buying the game, or that their parents censored the game before giving it to them. Countries like England, Germany and Australia are banning the trigger-happy games that are attracting their youth into real-world violence. A model the United States needs to be following more closely."

So, the parents aren't aware of the games their buying for their children? (By the way, you can't "censor" a game, since it's made for adults and thus had no such option) And the solution you come up with is for us to abandon our ideal of the First Amendment, protecting ALL forms of free speech, including an interactive medium, in favor of a solution that draws from the idea that we can't just make sure our children don't get these games in their hands in the first place? We try to combat parental ignorance and lack of informing them with governmental legislation? This isn't even a problem, and in the case where it IS a problem, it's a problem that can be solved EASILY with actual parental awareness!!! We do NOT need government aid for a nonexistant problem that could be solved if parents actually gave a damn about their children to begin with!

The industry does not need to be controlled. It needs to have these "problems" discussed with, and solutions made, that do NOT include having the government babysit children, carrying law-based firearms with black-ink legislative ammunition.

So, since I have protection of Free speech in anything I say, I"ll say what most gamers think of this editorial.

You Fail.

4. "For those of you unfamiliar with GTA, players are issued a male character that runs around a city committing crimes and creating mayhem. You can choose to accomplish your missions, which include drug deals, hiding from the police, beating up prostitutes and of course hijacking a car, or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex."
- First, you CAN beat up prostitutes. And random people on the street. And civilians. And cops. And you know what'll happen? The cops will come around and bust you so fast your head will be spinning, if they leave it on your shoulders. And you know something else? Anybody in their right mind will know you cannot, and SHOULD not, do that in real life. And the fact that you believe you can have virtual sex further proves you know less about the game than you think you do- unless you specifically download mods from people who didn't even make the game to begin with, there's no sex to be had.

3. "After quite a bit of research I came to the conclusion that Rockstar Games has the worst track record for violent and inappropriate video games. Their newest game, “Bully,” takes place in a prep school where the main character fights classmates, makes-out with ‘townies’ and disrespects teachers. In “Bully,” players can tease people, hit people with dodge balls and pull pranks. The game, full of inappropriate actions that could get any highschooler expelled, is the last thing American youth should be ‘playing.’ How is a game mixing violence and education appropriate to release directly after a chain of deadly school shootings? It is also apparent that Bully stereotypes each character, ingraining those who play the game with the “high school hierarchy” even further."
-Rockstar makes games for adult in most cases. This is not a bad track record- that's like saying that Quentin Tarantino's movies makes for a bad track record, even though they tend to be very popular. 'Bully', meanwhile, pokes fun at clique groups, defends himself and others against bullies, and has general disrespect for the teachers because they take the same stance that alot of teachers of today have- "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen, those kids just have alot of school spirit when they give you a wedgie, he's top of his class and a great football player, so I won't expel him." Personally, I find THIS to be more offensive than alot of violent video games.

1. "My argument is not that good games don’t exist - my point is there are far too many games available in the country doing more harm than we think."
- There are over 100 games released each year for many consoles- Nintendo, Sony Playstation, Microsoft, PC, etc.. On average, only a handful, 12% of these games, are rated "M" for mature. I would actually say there are fewer games out there for the adult audience than there are games out there for children. You fear that there are more games doing harm than good- there's nothing to fear, especially since only 12 games in 100 are meant for adults in the first place, and any parent who pays attention to the ratings would have little to fear.

2. "One Sierra Entertainment game, “Phantasmagoria,” uses interactive sequences to tell a violent story about a female character trapped in a house. One sequence shows the character getting raped. Games should be used as a means of entertainment or fun- there is nothing amusing about rape. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network Web site, every two and a half minutes someone in the United States is sexually assaulted. It is not a topic that should be made light of by placing it in a video game."
-Rape is NOT something that should be made light of. And video game developers understand that. In a story, an act such is rape is a dramatic thing, something that NOBODY tries to make fun, or funny. That a game should feature a scene of rape and display it in such a way is similar to how a movie shows the act of rape, or a book. By your reasoning, books and movies featuring rape as a dramatic and negative act should also be subjected to the claim that their making light of the act of rape. And in any case, this game is several years OLD, pre-2000, so trying to make a big deal out of this is beating the dead horse. Same rules should apply to parents who don't like Harry Potter- if you don't like it, don't read it, play it, watch it, or listen to it.

So, Millie, in defense of Clair Baxter, you begin by pointing out the name of a poster named "evilgamer", as if to persuade us that the name holds some meaning of truth. Unfortunately, I cannot point at the name "Clair Baxter" and claim that the name instigates some meaning of false claims in whateer she writes. However, I can point directly to the editorial she has written and point out every flaw in her OPINION with verifiable FACT. In fact, evilgamer CAN sit there and claim that what Ms. Baxter is writing it a LIE, because it just so happens that it IS a lie. The fact that evilgamer brought up the First Amendment is irrelevant in the context in which you read it- evilgamer was pointing out the games do count as free speech as well, not that it is protected from editorials- Ms. Baxter is free to write whatever the hell she wants, even if it is devoid of facts, research and honesty.

Grand Theft Auto is indeed a criminal game, with consequences for the things you do. And yes, anyone in their right mind would NOT do the things in real life that they've done in-game. That's why the game is rated "M" for Mature. And I find it deceitful that Ms. Baxter should write that GTA is a game where you sit in an apartment, smoke pot and have sex with anybody, when the game has little to do with either- not only does it show her inability (possibly, even her unwillingness) to properly research the media on which she is writing the editorial about, but the fact that she writes it as if children are in danger of this medium also proves that she ignores that these games are made for adults and NOT children to begin with. And you comment at the end of your writing, Millie, reflects that you believe this too, when such is CLEARLY not the case.
I am 21 years of age. I've played the game. I personally didn't like it- not because of the violence and sexual reference, in most respects, the social parodies it draws from the real world tend to be hilarious, but the game in itself did not interest me enough. Yet I seem to know more about how the game works and is played and is ABOUT. I personally would NOT let my child, if I should have one, play it until they're old enough, or I feel they're mature enough, yet a good many parents remain ignorant of what their children are doing, and when the time comes that THEY should take responsibility, the blame is shifted to the game makers.
Let me break down your case, Ms. Baxter. (-> Cont)

Millie.Tolleson - yes, people just love making up lies about the videogame industry.

The problem isn't the game industry, it's the parents.

I applaud you for having enough courage to try and post those lies.

Sad thing is, there is no correlation of games and actions of said gamers, therefore the idea around your entire article has been nullified.

It's obvious that Ms/Mrs Claire Baxter has no idea that the Sierra game in question is no longer available to buy, and such games are given the rating of "adult only" which means only pornography stores will sell them or specialty stores.

Claire has also OBVIOUSLY not played the game "bully" either and simply read into all the hype the "anti-gamers" are saying (99% of which is lies). Bully is not about a game where you can do anything. Just as in real life, the prefects will come if you start to bully another classmate, and the majority of the game is about you fighting back against a bully.

Oh well, I guess you support children getting injured by bullies, and doing nothing to them.

The entire debate over GTA is pointless too, because that's where parenting comes in. If a parent doens't have enough time to either take notice to what their kid is watching or the games their kid is playing, they don't deserve to have a child.

Don't forget this last thing. Every single time the game industry has been on trial, whether to stop a unconstitutional law or a lawsuit against developers, the game industry always has won. There's a reason for that.

@Millie.Tolleson

I think you need to reread evilgamer's topic and consider the fact that (s)he is actually making a rational point as opposed to knee-jerk flaming. The point of his topic, and the point of the entire struggle over creative freedom in interactive entertainment is the first amendment.
Please note that while Mrs. Baxter outright claims that entertainment software needs to be controlled, evilgamer is simply offering criticism, (as are you and I) and there is a clear distinction between the two.

I'm sure we can all agree there are certain things we find personally repugnant. But the repugnance of life is often the theme of stories that make philosophical and meaningful points. Control over any venue of expression is unconstitutional and banning a game because it has content you personally feel should be hidden from everyone is just as bad as banning/burning books that talk about things you'd rather pretend don't exist.

Is phantasmagoria philosophical? I don't know, I've never played it - I wouldn't be able to play it if I wanted to because it is not readily available. Mrs. Baxter's attempts to use this game to scare people into agreeing with her is where the lies come in because there is no way this game could be played by even a fraction of that 83% she talks about.

But lets pretend for a moment that it was readily available. No retailer would sell it unless it had an ESRB rating and this is most definitely an M rated game. M rated games are not intended for children and if Mrs. Baxter doesn't have the time or energy to make sure her children are not buying and playing M-rated games, maybe she should spend less of it trying to control everyone else's children.

The best way to make sure our children grow up to me mature, thoughtful, intelligent, healthy people is to spend time in their lives and talk to them about the more difficult things as they face them. If we are so detached from our children that we depend upon their video games to raise them instead, then I think the violence in the video games is the least of their problems.

respectfully concerned,
Dr.Saturn

Phantasmagoria seems an odd choice for this editorial to put so much focus on, as (a) it's been out of print for ten years, (b) it's so old that most computers today won't even run it, even if you can find a copy, and (c) the game's rape scene is in no way player-driven; it's no more interactive, or harmful, than watching The Accused or reading Moll Flanders.

As for Grand Theft Auto: Each game in the Grand Theft Auto series sells millions of copies. Two kids fired into a car and claimed that GTA made them do it. That's 0.0000002% of the game's total audience, but even leaving that aside — violent people have always made shoddy excuses for their own behavior. John Hinkley claimed that Taxi Driver made him shoot Ronald Reagan. The Son of Sam claimed that his dog told him to go out and kill people.

We've always had violence in society, from ancient times on, but if GTA had any power to make people more violent, crime statistics would be through the roof by now. Instead, violent crime has plummeted steadily every year since 1994. Even though fictional violence in games, movies and TV has increased dramatically — witness unedited broadcasts of Saving Private Ryan and Dawn of the Dead on network TV — real violence is much lower now than it used to be.

In fact, today's youth are among the most peaceful we've ever had, but because of a few nutcases, all of them get treated like potential criminals. After all, what grabs your attention more — "Lone kid shoots a teacher," or "80,000,000 kids get through their school day safely"?

In summary, there's nothing to fear from games, just as there was nothing to fear from rock and roll, comic books, or the written word. As long as there are people, some small fraction of them will be violent — but the roots of that violence go far, far deeper than any game, book or movie, and to focus on the media is to ignore the real problems.

Where to start?

A) Phantasmagoria has been out of print for more than a decade.

B) You do not "lie around your apartment having sex" in Grand Theft Auto. The only sexual activity occurs in a patch for San Andreas in which the option of a sexual minigame is available after a date.

C) All games mentioned in her article, with the exception of Bully, are rated "M: For Ages 17 and Over."

D) Bully is a game in which no blood or violence beyond lowkey fisticuffs occurs, and the primary goal is to defend others against the titular bullies.

E) Rape is certainly a horrible thing, but it serves as a plot line in several movies and classic literature. It occurs now in less than a handful of games and never is it controlled or "played."

Has Miss Baxter even played ANY of the games she derides, or is she simply content to rely on disproven information from NIMF and Jack Thompson without doing a single share of work. I can imagine her wholly unjustified, yet self-satisfied grin as she blankly churns out this attempt. For the future, consider three things: 1), games are rated for the ages they're meant to be played; parents need to do some PARENTING. 2), Discovering and playing the games for yourself may convince us that you're not so uninformed, as is obviously the case now. Finally, 3), Here is a GOOD effort at a news bit on this subject. Of note is the psychiatrist giving an accurate view of the "effects" on minors (or lack thereof) and the fact that they worked enough to produce a three-part and well rounded effort. Link below.

http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines.cfm&ID=37531

Millie.Tolleson, you do not seem to understand that not every video game is made for children, just like not every TV show and movie is made for children. I'm an adult, and also a gamer. The ratings systems exist for games, TV, and movies so young children won't be watching or playing things made for adults.

It's the parent's fault for not caring about the rating if their young child gets a violent game that the parent bought for them.

And I think that Clair is not being truthful as well. She has not played any of these games and is only writing about things that she's heard about them. For example, you can only have sex in Grand Theft Auto if you buy a $40 cheating device for cheating at video games and puting the code in. It wasn't even meant to be in the game. Also, it is only unlockable in early versions of the game. You could buy a new copy of it and the code wouldn't work.

I mean seriously this is flawed to very large extent. Next we are going to be hearing about the horrors of movies with the example of Birth of a Nation being used (Birth of a Nation is a horrible movie created in 1915 which showed the KKK in a positive light). Of course the date matters when discussing video game violence. That's why people don't discuss Birth of a Nation when they discuss violent and offensive movies.

And yes Clair is making up the plots of these games...There I said it. Or should I say she is ignoring the plots of these games. Bully isn't about being a bully; it’s about dealing with the various social cliques of school society (as you befriend the geeks, you become a target of the bullies). No one in Bully bleeds, dies, and there is very real punishment for doing bad things (the lawnmower mini game is pure torture). Ultimately the main character Jimmy overcomes the cliques of society, it hams up the stereotypes of the cliques BUT also shows the healing process (bullies stop picking on nerds as an example.)

Now on to Phantasmagoria. The rape scene in fact is questionable in itself but I'll leave that up to other people to discuss. The game plays out like a horror movie, the husband gets possessed by Satan and its up to his wife Clair to help save him. Yes there is nothing amusing about rape, but the game wasn't made to be amusing in the first place. It's a horror game (badly made though). The rape scene is NOT interactive btw

But it’s sad that you stand up for Clair’s first amendment rights but not ours. Games are protected under the First Amendment (just see all the laws that have been found unconstitutional).

Another issue is having played all the GTA titles, you can't "Just lie around your apartment and have sex with whomever you please." Physically impossible, even with the Hot coffee mod in full effect. The Hot Coffee mod allowed sex with women that CJ was dating at the time (no more, no less).

As to real world violence (see Justice department on the DECLINING rate of youth violence). Only one of eight school shootings has violent videogames been found (the last two shootings didn’t even involve children). Just go ahead and ignore the rampant hate mongering in European Soccer, the oppressed Muslim communities in France, and RAMPANT YOUTH CRIME across Europe. I mean hey, at least they aren't playing GTA.

With respect there are some enormous faults and fabrications in this article.
There are many TV shows and films, famous ones, too, which depict rape and other acts in varying degrees. You are far more likely to encounter such acts in film than in video games, where there are no mainstream, modern games which depict rape, even though this article makes it sound like every other game contains it. As evilgamer says, you'd have a hard time playing Phantasmagoria these days. Rape is awful, a disease of the human condition, but games can cover very serious issues in the same way film can, just because something is in a game doesn't mean it is there for 'fun'. I have been moved to tears by emotive events in games several times.
As for Bully? It is a game, not only meant for teens and above, but focuses on social commentary more than mischief. If you are bad, you get caught. The object of the game is largely to fend for others who cannot fend for themselves. You are the bullied, not the Bully.
In Grand Theft Auto, you cannot have graphic sex in the game. You can't see any sexual content unless you buy a device which lets you edit the code of the game (about $40) and unlock a piece of dormant code. You cannot do this in versions of the game published this year, and even if you do go to all the trouble, there is still no nudity in the game. The characters remain fully clothed throughout the whole 'act'.

On IDing, it is a well-known fact that stores do not have to ID young customers at all for DVD movies or games. In fact, a 9 year-old could walk into a store and buy the gory and violent 'Hostel' and the store are not forced by law to check for ID. Games and movies work on exactly the same system, and in actual fact, it is easier to get hold of a violent film than a violent game. Why are only games singled out? It seems illogical when the average gamer is over 30 years old today.
Also, if there is a game in a US store, it will be sold in the UK. The UK do not ban games unless they meet very special standards, the same standards apply to film, in fact. Where did you get such a 'fact'? It is utterly wrong and 5 minutes on a British high street will show that. Grand Theft Auto is also sold in Germany and Australia.

I truly believe that video games are as important a medium as film and TV. They had their critics at the time and yet civilisation has not collapsed. It seems that the cycle of ignorance and narrow-mindedness shows no signs of slowing.

If you want to ban Grand Theft Auto, you'd have to ban the Godfather, the Terminator, the Departed, the Shawshank Redemption and other classics of the big screen and I can't see anyone taking too kindly to that.

"Are you saying that condemning violent rape is wrong?"

No, s/he said condemning it as a plot device is wrong.

"Hm. I feel like that MIGHT just be a bad thing for small children to be partaking in, even in a "game" situation."

You're absolutely right, it is. That's why it's rated M. For Mature. So that people under 17 aren't supposed to play it. Kind of like how 10 year olds aren't supposed to watch rated R movies.

" I personally don't care when it was released or how talented the creator is, it still seems like a terrible plot."

You know what else has a terrible plot, then? Rosemary's Baby. Midnight Cowboy. Clockwork Orange. Deliverance. Thelma and Louise.

"are you seriously going to sit there and say that Clair is MAKING UP the plots of these games? Why would she LIE about it?!? "

Well, you can't have virtual sex in any of the GTAs (save San Andreas, but only if you get the modification from a website or use some sort of third party hack.) And since it really isn't an huge point in the game, I'd say yes. Why? To prove her point.

"its why, as the JOURNALIST in this situation, Clair can, should and WILL CONTINUE to write OPINION pieces on whatever she wants."

The original commenter never said anything about Clair not being able to continue to write about whatever she wants. However, at the same time, OC can say whatever s/he wants in response to it. OC just said that she's a bit hypocritical.



"your 8 year old children will be shooting people and raping women through a video game?"

First, all shooters that I know of are at least T. Which means the 8 year old shouldn't be anyway. 2nd? I don't know of a single ESRB-rated game that allows someone to rape another person. Phantasmagoria doesn't have the player raping someone.

In article:

"Mature rated video games are suitable for persons 17 and older and may contain mature sexual themes and intense violence and language. So how did a 14-year-old boy get a hold of one?"

Odds are, Mommy or Daddy bought their little angel the video game because Angel wanted it, and are now surprised that Angel is playing a game that allows you to shoot at things and run them over with cars and whatnot. Because Mommy and Daddy didn't take enough time out of their day to wonder what their child is playing.

Oh, and "or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex. " is a total fabrication.

Also, has anyone else noticed that youth violence has decreased over the period of time that violent video games have become a big thing in the media?

"In 2003 a 14 and a 16-year-old boy fired into a car in killing someone, which, according to gamespot.com, they claimed they learned from GTAIII"

You can't shoot into cars killing people in GTA3. Also, the game doesn't teach you how to fire a weapon, how to use the weapon, etc. Which means the 16 and 14 year old had to acquire the gun from somewhere, get ammunition for it, and how to properly fire the gun. (My girlfriend laughs at me when I say guns are just point and click.)

" It is not a topic that should be made light of by placing it in a video game."

But it's ok to make light of it by placing it in a movie. Good to know.

Part 3
Fabrication, did you know that game purchases are IDed more than any other form of entertainment that does not have the law requiring ID? Yep thats right games have a better track record than R rated movies and music with explicit words with a 65% refusal to minors. Did you know that the majority of parents with kids who play games use the ESRB to decide what games they will buy for their kids? Yep thats right, parents censor the games before giving it to their kids. 83% of parents with children who play video games are aware of the ESRB system and 74% of them use it to check appropriateness most of the time or every time. 53% say they never allow their kids to play M-rated games and 41% say them sometimes allow their kids to play M-rated games.

So what does this all mean? well it me sum it up for you Mrs Mollies of the world. 74% of the 83% of parents who know about the esrb rating system USE IT TO CENSOR WHAT THEIR CHILDREN PLAY. So those wonderful kids who have the M rated game at the ages of 11, 12, 13 where more likely to have been given the game by a family member. And underaged children are refused sale of a game 65% of the time. Amazing. Now that you have been informed Mrs. Mollies I wish you luck in your future endeavors of video game purchases.

Mrs Mollie your immaturety is astounding.

"That's great that your family values openness, really it is. So does Clair's- trust me. But so in your idea of a perfect, honest and open family, your 8 year old children will be shooting people and raping women through a video game? There is a difference between explaining and being open about issues that may affect them, and letting them partake in these situations in a way that seems fun."

A) Why should we trust you? Are you Clair? Do you know her personally?
B) What wonderfull generalizing attack you made their without even meeting Evilgamer. When you can't find facts to support your view of a situation just attack the other person by saying something you can't back up with facts either! Wow.... You know I almost feel bad for riping your comments and Clairs article apart. O wait no not really.

Sources for ESRB statistics: Straight from the source. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#2. Enjoy!

Post was to long - Continued
"Evilgamer- are you seriously going to sit there and say that Clair is MAKING UP the plots of these games? Why would she LIE about it?!?"

Umm not once did he say she was making up the plots of these games. He said and I quote:

"In short, Clair Baxter is lying to us. The only thing I can't figure out is which are worse -- the half-truths or the pure fabrications."

And Why would she lie about it? Umm to get her agenda/bias accepted by the soccer moms of america duh (you mrs. mollies - hook, line, and sinker).

Which she is, let me pull some things from her article and point them out since you obviously know nothing of the games she is commenting on and neither does she.

"You can choose to accomplish your missions, which include drug deals, hiding from the police, beating up prostitutes and of course hijacking a car, or you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex. "

Not being a big fan of GTA myself but having played it somewhat, first off you can't lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please. You can however have sex with prostitutes and your girlfriend. Not to mention beating up prostitutes like they are the only people you can beat up. You can infact beat up anyone you want in the game, however it has consequences such as having the cops then the military come after you, in which case you will eventually be killed. These are what evilgamer refered to as a half truth. amazing how correct he was.

Now for the outright "lie" which evil gamer made no mention of. Well lets see.

"Mature rated video games are suitable for persons 17 and older and may contain mature sexual themes and intense violence and language. So how did a 14-year-old boy get a hold of one?

It’s doubtful that they were IDed when buying the game, or that their parents censored the game before giving it to them."

In response to Mollies wonderfully un-informed comments,

First things first attacking based on a name OBVIOUSLY making a sarcastic comment about how gamers are viewed today by the older and un-informed folks just screams your ignorance on this issue and why you should not be commenting on it in the first place. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Next I will tackle your comments on the first amendment issue. Evilgamer's point was that the author of this article is advocating suppressing a form of expressing ones ideas, views, beliefs, and social commentaries similar to that of journalism only through an arguably more powerful medium. He said not a word about having Clair stop writing he simply said that she was hypocritical in condeming games when they do much the same thing as she as journalist does. They inform, teach, make social commentaries, and tell stories. THAT is why she is a hypocrit because shes advocating censoring games but not journalism. Freedom of speech as you so proudly touted can not be applied when and where we choose but must be applied to anything in which an opinion or idea can be stated; whether it is games, movies, music, cartoons, or articles. Otherwise there is no point in having it.

I wouldn't necessarily say she's lying; she just researched misinformation and used it as a basis for an editorial.

"Are you saying that condemning violent rape is wrong?"

Context matters. In the game this rape is a BAD THING! A VERY VERY VERY VERY BAD THING! Just like in real life, coincidentally. If a game was giving you points for raping people, or saying rape is great, then I'd have a problem with it. But this game is showing a rather clear fact. Rape is a horrible thing that has to be stopped...or better yet, punished.

Also the 'lies and half truths' comes up in this sentence, which I find most offensive, is this:

"you can just lie around in your apartment and have sex with whomever you please, virtual sex"

This is just not true. For one thing I've played GTA 3, GTA San Andres and GTA Vice City. Only ONE of those, GTA San Andres, has a 'sex scene' and that is only accessible from a 3rd Party download. The developer's removed the sex scenes from an early build of the game, but someone was careless and left some code in the program, enough code for an enterprising man or woman to hack into the code and modify it. And then, guess what, the developers took the GTA product OFF THE SHELVES, costing them MILLIONS OF DOLLERS, and REMOVED THE CODE so the mod could never be used again.

Does that sound like the actions of a evil, heartless video game company that wants to corrupt our youth...but wait...these games are marketed for ADULTS and should be played by...guess what...adults! It's a shock, I know, but most of these games are not met for children. GTA, for example, should never be played by a child...unless the parent of said child decides that the child is mature enough to handle the content of the game.

"JOURNALIST in this situation, Clair can, should and WILL CONTINUE to write OPINION pieces on whatever she wants."

On the note of the first Amendment: You are allowed to have your opinions...and I am allowed to make fun of them.

In regards to the previous comment, can I please just point to your user name. I rest my case.

Now, onto what you said. Are you saying that condemning violent rape is wrong? Hm. I feel like that MIGHT just be a bad thing for small children to be partaking in, even in a "game" situation. I personally don't care when it was released or how talented the creator is, it still seems like a terrible plot.

Evilgamer- are you seriously going to sit there and say that Clair is MAKING UP the plots of these games? Why would she LIE about it?!?

And your mention of the First Amendment- to defend your stance on why Clair should not write what she did in her commentary- is perhaps the most ridiculous thing you say. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech-- its why, as the JOURNALIST in this situation, Clair can, should and WILL CONTINUE to write OPINION pieces on whatever she wants.

That's great that your family values openness, really it is. So does Clair's- trust me. But so in your idea of a perfect, honest and open family, your 8 year old children will be shooting people and raping women through a video game? There is a difference between explaining and being open about issues that may affect them, and letting them partake in these situations in a way that seems fun.

I have honest respect for Dr. David Walsh. I personally disagree with many of his opinions, but I appreciate his transparent methods and open communication. That said, it is extremely rare to read an article about video games in which NIMF comes of as the least biased source. It's been a long time since I read anything so pretentious and so deceitful at the same time.

The author's misrepresentations are too abundant to address one by one, so consider the first example cited. Phantasmagoria does not run on "game machine" consoles. It is an M-rated game for home computers released nearly 12 years ago. It would be a challenge even to find a computer that can run it these days, since it was programmed for the pre-Windows DOS operating system. How many of your readers still run DOS?

Phantasmagoria was written by Roberta Williams, one of the most respected story tellers in the history of the game industry. Clair Baxter's implication, that any narrative involving rape is automatically dangerous and evil, condemns not only Phantasmagoria, but also thousands of mainstream movies, television shows, and books -- including the King's James Bible.

In short, Clair Baxter is lying to us. The only thing I can't figure out is which are worse -- the half-truths or the pure fabrications. Are you afraid, fellow readers? I can think of no reason the author would concoct this mixture of pop-culture apocrypha, if not to scare us away from our Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. I am somewhat surprised that anyone who works for the press has so little regard for the First Amendment. It stinks of hypocrisy.

Perhaps the author's biggest mistake is the assumption that all Americans share the same cultural backgrounds and moral values. We do not. For example, in my family, honesty and openness are valued. I suggest that instead of trying to save us all from ourselves, you just worry about your own kids, Clair Baxter. Going by the prejudiced paranoia and repressed narrow-mindedness you've spewed across this page, I expect they're going to need all the help they can get.

Sincerely,
A First-time/Last-time Reader