Wow!! Talk about speed blogging!

Thanks for posting this, I have had a lot of friends who were cops and it just makes me sick to think of a game promoting killing them.

Thanks again,
Jake

Ace,

Thanks for linking to this important post. It's more like a public service message. We're working very hard to get the message out, and appreciate you sharing it with your readers.

25 to Life should stay behind bars.

The exclusive story behind our petition is here.

Best regards,
Cal

Oh... so THIS is where we draw the line? Ok. Well, I guess I should be glad you guys think there is one.

Don't even get me started on all that is wrong with games sold to children.

Sorry, but I've gotta call BS on this one. Videogames haven't been "for kids" since the original PlayStation came out in 1995 - at that time the average age of buyers was in the low 20s and it's now pushing 30. And I would imagine the game in question is rated at least "M", meaning people under 18 can't buy it anyway.

OT - but the "duh" moment of the week can be found here...
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051004_unwed_mothers.html

Come on, video game violence has been getting more realistic and extreme at the same time the youth crime rate has been falling. So tell me why we should listen to grandma's opinions on what games should be sold?

The culture wars are over, and ICE T won.

There shd be a disclaimer on the package that if they shoot a cop “the video game made me do it” defense ain't gonna mean shit to a death qualified jury in Texas nor a death qualified jury in Florida nor a death qualified jury in Georgia . . .

My father and brother are cops, yet I thoroughly enjoy playing Grand Theft Auto, a video game where the thuggish anti-hero kills everything from little digital cops to gangbangers to innocent bystanders. Come to think of it, my cop brother has been known to pick up a paddle as well.

And my favorite movie? A film about a notorious, murderous crime family, one of whom shoots a cop in the head and gets away with it, and boy is he cool. It's called, lessee, um ... The Godfather. I also dig the Sopranos! I must support the promotion of cop killing. My shame! My shame!

Man Ace, you gotta stop linking everything everyone sends you.

(Ducks and runs for cover)

Bottom line, and I'm sorry for the common sense, but if you don't like the game don't buy it. It will probably be a crappy GTA knock-off anyway that more people will buy now that someone wants to ban it.

I must support the promotion of cop killing.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Ah, another anonymous swipe at me. Why don't you show yourself, tough guy?

Oh, and seeing as most of my immediate family are cops, go fuck yourself.

Ah, another anonymous swipe at me. Why don't you show yourself, tough guy?

Oh, and seeing as most of my immediate family are cops, go fuck yourself.

So. How's that Dale Carnegie course coming?

I'll bet Bill would buy the shit out of the game if he could run down some folks on their way to church. Oh, and kneeling for Communion makes for easy, if messy, head shots. Watch that cassock, Father!

Come on guys, law off Bill. He's just offering his opinion that this game won't cause more violence any more than cartoons like GI Joe did. (Which should be required viewing for the nations youth.) I know that Grand Theft Auto 3 and it's sequels are among the most popular games sold over the last 5 years and no one can logically blame gang warfare or crime upon that game.

I feel much the same way here. I've played more than my fair share of games growing up and it's not difficult to separate fantasy from reality. What is needed is to teach children that having children out of wedlock is destructive behavior and that having a nuclear family is beneficial towards a healthy developing society. It is up to parents to raise their kids, instead of letting crap like MTV do it for them.

But, if you truly want to prevent games like this from getting into the marketplace, then we need to offer viable alternatives. Playing organized sports for fun, reading books for entertainment, going camping, etc are all things that are left on the wayside for most children in today's society due to their parents lack of involvement in their lives.

"Bill" spelled backwards is "Llib".

Coincidence? I think not.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out and trying to convince people that the game is bad for whatever reason and they shouldn't buy it. Fine by me, let the market have it's say, after all this is America, and we are all entitle to say what we think.

But if you actually want the government to ban the game, than I certainly disagree with you. Are we to ban every movie or game that involves a main character killing an innocent person? These are dangerous grounds to walk on.

Does anyone here actually think that violent video games cause crimes? I have played plenty of such games, and have yet to even remotely physically hurt anyone, let alone a cop.

I am firmly against this sort of censorship.

Where were your pro-censor guys when came out. More kids saw that than will be able to buy this game. If you don't like it (and I don't), don't buy it and don't allow your kids to buy it. There are tighter controls on this type of game than on R-Rated movies.

At least you can feel good about being in the same camp as Hillary!

What was the one where you were a postal worker gone...you know...an' you ha' 'to shoot everyone in sight? Years an' years ago. Women an' chil'ren woul' get on their knees an' beg you not to shoot them, but if you 'i'n't, they' sneak up when your back was turne' an' wallop you?

Or the one where you shot flareguns at priests an' they went up up like torches?

If there ever was a line, we gallope' across it long ago.

(Excuse the stray apostrophes. The content filter unlikes the fourth letter of the alphabet tonight).

You guys think an "M" rating stops youngsters getting games, huh?

Just like an R rating stops teenagers from sneaking into movies, right?

My line about criminal incitement may have been a bit too Henny Penny, but this is shit that is just vile.

The hell with GTA.

What about a hypothetical game "Stalker," a first-person raper (FPR) game where the hero rapes women?

The game was called "Postal", S. Weasel. First game I ever returned. This game actually sounds less objectionable to me than GTA, since the game lets you pick whether you're going to be a thug. In GTA, you *have* to be a thug, and you *have* to murder policemen to get through the game.

I have been reliably informed the first production run has been bought up completely by the ACLU to send out as Christmas stocking stuffers.

Censorship is censorship.

How about we start expecting (requiring?) a little personal responsibility?

Censorship is censorship.

Indeed.

The "personal responsibility" thing is B.S. though. What metric? Who's notions of "responsible".

Paladin had big legal problems when they published "Hit Man" and someone (apparently) used the instructions within to do a real life hit.

The Paladin/Hit Man incident didn't mean much to me at the time since I'd shrewdly obtained my copy a couple of years prior before the shit hit the fan...

The "personal responsibility" thing is B.S. though. What metric? Who's notions of "responsible".

Well, no, that flavor of personal responsibility doesn't require a metric. It simply means every adult is absolutely and incontrovertibly responsible for everything he does. No drug problem or bad childhood or video game is permitted to mitigate an iota of that responsibility.

No drug problem or bad childhood or video game is permitted to mitigate an iota of that responsibility.

That's not THIS country though.

I've never bought the twinky/TV/game addiction/poor childhood/etc defenses, but a lot of juries and judges apparently have.

Here in the USA, everyone, even the most vile subhuman trash, is considered a "victim".

Japan apparently has the same problems we do in recognizing murderous amoral slime for what it is too."

It's good to see all the healthy debate here about this issue. Now, for those of you who actually read our post, you'll see that this petition is sponsored by COPS and our story was provoked by a cry for help from a concerned father of an LAPD officer.

Now, while Bill from INDC is fairly entitled to his opinion and he bolsters his credibility by referencing his family in law enforcement, we stand firm in our objection to the game. As someone said, it's the luxury of being an American. We're voicing an opinion, and the public can decide to support the initiative or not.

As to the matter of games not being harmful, its not so easily dismissed. While Bill sounds like he can confidently separate reality from fiction, not everyone can. The real concern over gratuitious human violence is that it desensitizes impressionable minds to the aversion of commiting such acts, and studies are available to support the claim. Keeping it simple, we sometimes use our slaughterhouse question: Will a child raised by a butcher be revulsed by the site of blood as an adult any less than someone who was raised without watching carnage? Consider.

Games like 25 to Life are not only "glorifying" the killing of police, but they're also romanticizing the "gangsta" life. And, indeed, GTA is no different. It's corrupt and unhealthy to serve it up as entertainment. Another point can be made about the soundtrack: check it out. The fact that you could not reprint a single lyric in a public (or perhaps even here) without editing for vulgar content should say something. Mom tells Johnny not to swear, but in his room he's listening to rap that goes beyond profanity.

Finally, for those that continue to dispute whether or not these kinds of products are suitable for children, and are ready to cry out "censorship," maybe these unique game ideas will make you think.

Big Pimp: Jersey Whores
Objective: Make your bi'atches work the street, slap 'em around, maximize your profits, shakedown johns and shoot gangstas trying to movein on yo' turf

NeoNazee: Take Back America
Objective: Shoot all non-whites and take back the neighborhood

Kill Whitey: No More Oppression
Objective: Shoot all whites and take over the neighborhoods

Class Warfare: Take What We Want
Objective: Pick your race, pick a wealthy neighborhood or office, kill whoever, and take what belongs to you because you think it does

Any objections to these game ideas? It's violence and vulgarity, no different. If you object, would that be censorship -- or common sense?

We vote for the latter.

Been there, done that. Remember the Comics Code? Here's where it came from:

Wertham, Fredric
Seduction of the Innocent

After seven years of research on children and adolescents diagnosed as "juvenile delinquents," psychiatrist Wertham concluded that crime comic books (mysteries, thrillers, horror, and police stories) are a harmful influence on young minds. In fourteen chapters, rife with the logic of comparison from the adult world, he analyzed the problem literature, its artwork, its advertising, and the so-called "educational messages" it contained.

Against the evidence of various "experts" and the champions of civil liberties, numerous anecdotes demonstrate how comic books glorify violent crime, link sexual love with physical abuse, permit illiteracy, and invite imitation. A series of vignettes demonstrates that violent child crime is on the rise and that actual crimes--even murder--have been connected to the reading of comics.

We reference this source:
Children and Violent Video Games:
Are There "High Risk" Players?
Jeanne B. Funk
University of Chicago

Sheesh CC, even the study you cite admits that no causal relationship exist between violent video games and violence. Yes, borderline and violent personalities enjoy violent video games, but no, video games do not make anyone violent. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

You nanny-staters are ridiculous, maybe instead of censorship we need compulsory Clockwork Orange style screenings of the "Marge vs. Itchy and Scratchy" episode.

I don't care if cops support this.

I don't care if there is a neo-nazi game that encourages "taking back" America.

I will support charges against someone who murders, regardless of where they got their ideas or their methods.

I will not support what amounts to the beginnings of an American tradition of prosecuting "thought crime."

Just who gets to decide what is objectionable or harmful to society? Who is the final arbiter of what I can and cannot buy with my hard earned money?

Speak out? Sure! In fact please do! Ban/censor? NEVER!

I'm not a big slippery-slope guy, but this is a time where it makes sense. If you can ban this game, what is next? What happens when the left gains control of the levers of power and they try to ban something near and dear to your heart? They woiuld only be using your example.

Government action is never the answer to social issues.

I'll add my voice. In our legal tradition, conduct is actionalbe; thoughts never are.

No matter how reprehensible these games from a culutural perspective, they represent ideas, and ideas without action are not criminal.

Still, the issue gets a little mushy when you start talking about child porn, for example. You can justify the prosecution of child porn buyers because they augment the industry and perpetuate the child porn mentality. But then, why not prosecute the vendors of this game because they promote a cop-killer mentality?

The reality is that, at some point, public morality trumps individual freedom. The only issue is, where do you draw the line.

Mostly, I am biased in favor of individual freedom and I draw the line when the values at issue threaten social disintegration. Child porn clearly poses such a threat. I'm not too sure about a game based on cop-killer fantasies. How is that different from me and my friends playing "cowboys and Indians" when I was a kid? I had a six-shooter cap gun with a quick release holster that facilitated the untimely demise of a lot of Indians (and/or cowboys).

Children are different from adults. Since so many children have little or no parental discipline, guidance and teaching, video games provide an unacceptably large influence on them.

The "M" rating needs to be dropped to a lower age.

California Conservative:
I don't think any of those products are suitable for children. That's why they would be rated M or AO if they existed. Plenty of things aren't suitable for children; that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Now, I'm not condoning the message of those games, either. Anyone who would make such a game should be shunned. But, lack of exposure is not the same as prevention of expression.

I agree with Bill.

California Conservative says that they are just voicing an opinion and leaving it to the public to decide whether to support the initiative or not. That is just some glossy lipstick on your censorship pig. I am going to "support the initiative" by not purchasing this game when it is released. It takes a sick mind anticipate enjoying this game to begin with - the purchase of this game is a symptom, not a disease.

I once heard a morbidly obese comic give a line about how the most popular video game in America at the time was Madden NFL 2k4, but you didn't see him running 4.4 40s. The purchase of this game is a symptom, not a disease.

In a later post, you, California Conservative, conflate "objection" with censorship. I would take exactly the same position on any of the hypothetical games you present. My objection to these games would manifest itself identically - with a refusal to purchase those games.

As far as your *we're protecting the children* meme goes, that is their parents job. If their parents are too far gone to keep these games out of their kid's hands, the kid is screwed anyways. Their absentee parents will find another way to screw them up if they can't do it by letting them play games like these.

If I might say so, ace...

What the fuck? What the FUCKING fuck?

So it has come to this. Looks like I'm going to have to go join the fucking local PTA and start knitting sweaters and worrying about the creases that will be folding into my troubled brow as I ponder the moral decay of our children and their whorrible violent games.

It is indecent, I tell you. What we need right now is some outrage. Ayup. After I finish making this tea cozy. Anyone up for bridge later?

Look, let's apply a little common sense, here. Images both sound and visual DO have at least some affect on people's behavior (if they didn't we would not have advertisements on TV, among other things). It is not a DECISIVE influence, at least not in the overwhelming majority of people, but there is some effect. Most of us on this blog (OK, ALL of US on this blog) will not go out and shoot a cop because of a video game. That does not mean some kid whose Dad is a welfare check and whose Mom has 3 other kids to worry about will not be tipped over to imitate the cool things he sees on his game cube.

Free speech has its limits (ask any college student) and PC notwithstandsing, we Attillla-the-Hun Republicans can agree on the lack of a right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. We have a lot of messed up kids, let's not mess them up more by glorifying crime.

As for creating "thought crimes" well that horse is already out of the barn. Use "hate speech" around your co-workers, students, etc and you will be out a job very quickly.

I hope you guys know that some of my best friends are demonic misshapen monsters from the bowels of an extra-dimensional hell, and they strongly object to the game Doom III. It's a blueprint for murder, it is.

Maybe after we this one in the holy light of our outrage, we can revisit that old Cop Killer song. Because we sure kicked that one quiet the first time around, didn't we?

Why can't they make nice video games these days, like one where we get to go around, breaking into people's homes and taking away their copies of lame ass games like Tetris?

Communist puzzle propoganda, that one is.

"I'm not too sure about a game based on cop-killer fantasies. How is that different from me and my friends playing "cowboys and Indians" when I was a kid?"

Uh ...

Battleof the Pyramids

You may have a point about the horse already having left the barn, but that doesn't validate just saying, "fuck it. we lost already." I'm not willing to concede the war because of a battle lost.

Past wrongs should not be piled upon with more, if there's any way we can help it.

...and as fire as the yelling "fire" in the auditorium thing goes, well - that I'm willing to live with.

I know it's bending the rules, because without an actual death or injury, it must be subjectively observed and judged.

The difference (to continue using this example) is that faced with fear of immediate, fiery death, people will trample over a motherfucker to get out of the way. That's a stressful, high-adrenaline situation, to say the least.

Video games may portray certain things and perhaps give us certain ideas, but I challenge you to point to a study that shows users immediately transformed into cop-killing crazies, whipped up into a lather equal to a screaming crowd trying to exit a theatre.

Apples and oranges, I think.

People must be responsible for their real actions, not thought crime. or would you rather sites like this be shut down?

um, that's "as far as"

sorry

Yup! I think video games promoting these kind of behaviour is on the wrong side of that line.

There's a game rating system for a reason. If it's not working, don't trash the game industry; fix the rating system. Game shops should not sell games to kids which are rated for adult levels of violence. If the system permits them to do so, or if parents are systematically buying adult-rated games for their children, then the system needs to be improved.

The idea that violent media in general doesn't cause real-life violence misses the point somewhat. A book isn't a movie, and a movie isn't a video game. The problem isn't necessarily all violent media, but rather violent video games. One of the main concerns is that as video games become more realistic in look and feel, they have the potential to become better and better training tools for individuals who have a propensity for violence (a subgroup of angry teenagers, for example).

Plenty of kids buy and play these games, and as the violence gets more realistic, the line between game and reality IN A YOUNGER MIND can get blurred somewhat. Not in a Tom Hanks "Mazes and Monsters" kind of way, but rather the idea is planted that the commission of violent acts comes without a price. That's bad. What kinds of kids are going to play these games? Most likely the ones who don't have a great deal of parental supervision.

Where you get into legal trouble is the intent. That's what hit Paladin Press: the victims' ambulance chaser did his best to prove that Paladin INTENDED for the "Hitman" book to be used as a tool for killing people, and Paladin's insurance company settled out of court. Does Eidos intend for kids to get this game and act out cop-killing fantasies? I seriously doubt it. Eidos intends to make money.

The problem I have with the government blocking games, movies and music of any kind is that it treats the symptoms and not the problems. The probem isn't that a few people are making this kind of "entertainment" it's that so many people connect with them enough to make them profitable. If we were to fix the family and the culture, these kind of things would go away on their own, as there would no longer be an audience for it. Censorship just hides the real problem.

That said, I aplaud CC for their campaign...as long as it is grassroots and not taken to the authorities. If it is just an awareness campaign to get people to voluntarily renounce this type of thing, it is a noble undertaking. But if the intent is to get a needless, nanny-state law passed, then I cannot support that.

What? Ban a video game because it MIGHT cause some nutjob to start killing cops? Why not ban guns, because some nutjob MIGHT start shooting people?

I thought this was lefty-liberal territory, ya know? Like banning the 10 Commandments or the Nativity because someone MIGHT start praying.

Oh, it's "For The Children," right?

Did you notice that the game also offers the chance to play the Good Guy? Is that objectionable too? Or irrelevant?

In our legal tradition, conduct is actionalbe; thoughts never are.

What's the difference between a crime and a hate crime?

Rob,

You don't think this is poisonous to our culture? Isn't there some benefit to Americans if we didn't teach our kids that it's okay to pretend to shoot cops?

If you don't think we should draw boundaries then you haven't thought it through.

Besides which, it's not just a "might happen" but a "does happen" and "will happen again."

As a kid, did you ever play "Cops & Robbers" in your backyard?

Ever point your finger at your friend playing the Cop and say, "bang! Bang! You're dead!"

Besides the benefit of running around outside and getting some exercise, what's the difference?

Well, for one, the other kids didn't spurt blood all over the place when you shot them. And two, the other kids looked like other kids, not real-life cops. And three, your parents were right there, providing structure, discipline and making sure you didn't take it too seriously.

Just because a kid can get his hands on an ADULT product does not mean it should be banned. Kids can get a hold of porn ( I did ) booze ( I did ) smokes ( I did ) and some can even get a hold of weapons. Should those be banned? I think underage drinking is more dangerous to society then a cops and robbers video game. Are we going to ban all booze now? If you don't like it don't buy it.

This game spurts REAL BLOOD?

Well, there's a reason to petition against it that I can support.

Thanks, Dogstar!

While we're at it, why don't we petition against Red Storm for publishing first-person shooters where Muslims are the 'bad guys.'

I'm sure CAIR would love to have us on board for that, huh?

Jason:

Let me try to clarify a couple of things. My main point is that, in the specific case of video games like this, we know that they are going to have some effect on some younger people. Not mature adults like you and me. We grew up with a Mom and Dad who made sure we knew the difference between right and wrong, and they were reinforced by our teachers, rabbis, neighbors, etc. For all that we played cowboys and indians, GI Joe, and watched shows like Combat and Rat Patrol, there were enough counterbalancing influences in our lives so that we did not act out what we saw, or if we did it was just kids play with cap guns, water pistols, etc.

Today the culture is different. Video games are MUCH more realistic (that's why they are used as training tools) and the counterbalancing influences are not there, so the games have more impact. Plus, old TV shows were on the side of law and order - they did not glorify criminal behavior. Us kids wanted to be Steve Mcgarrett, not Wo Fat.

It is only common sense to say that if enough kids watch enough games that basically teach them and encourage them to be criminals, some will try and act it out. So, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, we have a good idea that harm will be done, just like we are reasonably sure that shouting fire in a crowded theatre will cause bad things to happen.

As for the horse/barn arguement - yes, we should not give up, but a ban on video games that say "be a criminal" will not set a precedent for censorship - that has already been done. And there is a big difference between saying "cut taxes, stop illegal immigration, wage war on Islamic terrorists" and "shoot cops". Even liberals should be able to understand the difference, though they probably will not. I am not in favor of criminalizing thoughts or hate speech, but I would no more support a game that says "shoot cops" than I would one that says "shoot Jews".

Steve O,

The fact that there is something the government could do that would be of benefit to Americans is not sufficient reason for the government to do it.

If you don't think this is true, you haven't thought it through.

It would be greatly beneficial to our culture if we taught children how to act responsibility and to only use force in a defensive manner.

That does not equate to censorship. That equals education. I support trying to get people to boycott this game because that is an individual's right to protest against what they feel is harmful to the social environment. Trying to get the game banned however goes too far. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook... trying to prevent the game from being sold will just make it the "next big thing."