Imus Leading us to Censorship?

[Pangloss]

If you were reading closely between the lines this week then you may have noticed a very subtle but powerful shiv slipping between the ideological ribs of the Democratic party. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, the media absolutely CEMENTED itself to the slam-fest against hip-hop music this week, with virtually no effort made to give the other side its say. Free speech advocates were as rare as unarmed bodyguards at a hip hop awards show.

 

One of the most interesting things about it was just the sheer number of ostensibly liberal/left/free-speech organizations that immediately launched full salvos against rap. Even the National Organization of Women, which normally falls all over itself to take liberal positions on issues having nothing to do with feminism, made noises about breaking ideological ranks, sounding like it was ready to team up with African American leadership to protest at rap music concerts. Ironically the same organization speaks out consistently for free speech in the area of abortion rights.

 

Barrack Obama made a non-commital statement in support of changing the rap industry, but he actually came off looking a bit hypocritical, because we all know that music mogul David Geffen is one of his biggest supports. Looks like that bru-ha-ha with Geffen and the Clintons turned out to have a down side after all. So now even Obama can't stand up for free speech without looking like a hypocrit.

 

But most of these Democrats are falling all over themselves to see how quickly they can get behind censorship of the recording industry. As I've remarked here before, this is an area that Democrats (especially presidential candidates) have identified as a common ground for woo'ing red state voters.

 

Watch: Video games will be next.

[Sisyphus]

I can only express continued utter bafflement at this whole, snowballing phenomenon. The effect is way, way bigger than the apparent cause. What is going on here?

[bascule]

Historically this kind of censorship has brought together authoritarians on both the left and right. Right-wing authoritarian Democrats seem to eat it up with a spoon (e.g. Robert Novak, Joe Lieberman) as the left-leaning authoritarians dish it out (Tipper Gore comes to mind)

 

I tend to linger on the Frank Zappa side of things. While I think it's perfectly fine that CBS fired him (after all, the advertisers scurried away when a man previously mired in racial controversy made a somewhat-but-not-really-racist remark) the government's reaction to the incident should be zero.

 

It was really pathetic watching Imus try to suck up to Al Sharpton. It was even worse watching Sharpton skewer him over all sorts of unintended interpretations of what he said.

 

I think promulgators of hate speech should be skewered in the public spotlight. That's the correct reaction. When the government steps in, that's when things have gone too far.

[Haezed]

If you were reading closely between the lines this week then you may have noticed a very subtle but powerful shiv slipping between the ideological ribs of the Democratic party. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, the media absolutely CEMENTED itself to the slam-fest against hip-hop music this week, with virtually no effort made to give the other side its say. Free speech advocates were as rare as unarmed bodyguards at a hip hop awards show.

 

I don't see how in any way, shape or form, free speech is implicated by this dynamic. In fact, it is free speech which is skewering Imus and, thankfully, rap music. Government isn't involved although you might be able to find a kook here and there that advocates government censorship.

 

Imus is a big boy who is at the mercy of the free market place of ideas and popularity. I found his popularity inexplicable in the first place and if the masses turn against him, so what? That's just life in the big city.

 

One of the most interesting things about it was just the sheer number of ostensibly liberal/left/free-speech organizations that immediately launched full salvos against rap. Even the National Organization of Women, which normally falls all over itself to take liberal positions on issues having nothing to do with feminism, made noises about breaking ideological ranks, sounding like it was ready to team up with African American leadership to protest at rap music concerts. Ironically the same organization speaks out consistently for free speech in the area of abortion rights.

 

I've lost you here. No one says, that I know of, that we should not be able to debate abortion rights. There was some controversy in the application of RICO to certain actions but free speech is intact.

 

There is no inconsistency at all in belatedly turning the lights on rap musics scummy underbelly.

 

But most of these Democrats are falling all over themselves to see how quickly they can get behind censorship of the recording industry. As I've remarked here before, this is an area that Democrats (especially presidential candidates) have identified as a common ground for woo'ing red state voters.

 

I doubt seriously legislation will be introduced which actually censors music. If that happens, I'd be shocked if it weren't overturned.

 

Watch: Video games will be next.

 

Tipper spoke out against those years ago to no avail. I don't see anything happening here except a healthy debate.

[Haezed]

...away when a man previously mired in racial controversy made a somewhat-but-not-really-racist remark) the government's reaction to the incident should be zero.

....

When the government steps in, that's when things have gone too far.

 

Can someone please post a link to where government has acted in this flap? The worst I've seen linked on this board is for Rice to post her own personal opinion on a subject obviously outside of the purview of a secretary of state.

 

Speaking against what someone else says is not censorship. It's debate.

[Saryctos]

Watch: Video games will be next.

 

ORLY?

 

Video games you say?

It's local, so I thought I'd share it with you all.

[Haezed]

I'm as concerned as anyone with the FIrst Amendment; i've simply not heard any evidence of government action in this regard.

[ParanoiA]

I'm as concerned as anyone with the FIrst Amendment; i've simply not heard any evidence of government action in this regard.

 

And no one has suggested any as far as I can tell. The link above on video games has to do with a school hosting an event that involves an M rated game - or rather keeping the event out of the school. I see no first amendment infringement there, any more than not allowing cussing in school.

 

I think promulgators of hate speech should be skewered in the public spotlight. That's the correct reaction. When the government steps in, that's when things have gone too far.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[bascule]

Can someone please post a link to where government has acted in this flap? The worst I've seen linked on this board is for Rice to post her own personal opinion on a subject obviously outside of the purview of a secretary of state.

 

Nothing's happened yet. People are just talking about it:

 

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/17075630.htm

 

Which is fine, but in the past this attitude lead to things like Parental Advisory stickers

[ecoli]

I was worried about it... but the Virginia Tech massacre has pretty much replaced all talk of Imus, at least on the talk radio circuits.

 

Of course, now the issue people are talking about is gun control.

[ParanoiA]

I was worried about it... but the Virginia Tech massacre has pretty much replaced all talk of Imus, at least on the talk radio circuits.

 

Of course, now the issue people are talking about is gun control.

 

That's exactly what I'm worried about. The day of the shooting they were already talking about conceal and carry laws on local radio. Although, most admitted that even people with conceal and carry licenses aren't likely to carry guns on campus and they're surely prohibited in the first place.

[bascule]

Of course, now the issue people are talking about is gun control.

 

Don't forget about violent video games. All the anti-violent video games are gabbing on about how they're sure that Cho Sueng-Hui probably played them. There's no real evidence yet, but that doesn't stop people from trying to milk the situation to push a political point (yeah, I'm guilty of it too)

[Haezed]

Don't forget about violent video games. All the anti-violent video games are gabbing on about how they're sure that Cho Sueng-Hui probably played them. There's no real evidence yet, but that doesn't stop people from trying to milk the situation to push a political point (yeah, I'm guilty of it too)

 

And so it goes...

 

Dr. Phil on point:

 

KING: Dr. McGraw, are they treatable?

 

MCGRAW: Well, Larry, every situation is different. Candice has given very wise people about who these people are and why they do what they do. The problem is a lot of times they are recognizable. Columbine, Colorado, Jonesboro, Arkansas, the Amish school up in New England, if you with 20 hindsight, you'd see that there are warning signs of people becoming very disturbed and oftentimes talking about this now on the website as well as to their friends and neighbors.

 

And you know are they treatable? They're usually dead after something like this happens because the police take them out or they take themselves out. The question really is can we spot them. And the problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me -- common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.

Saieth LARRY KING:

 

Well said.

 

I'm not entirely sure Dr. Phil is completely wrong here.

[bascule]

I'm not entirely sure Dr. Phil is completely wrong here.

 

No video games were found among Cho Seung-hui's personal effects:

 

http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html

 

As to whether video games are part of the "fiber of society" and somehow vicariously responsible, I'm going to go with "No". Humans have been violent forever. There's innumerable sources of violence we could pull out of our ass and try to pin this on. How about the war in Iraq? Or professional wrestling.

 

That sort of reasoning is nothing but the specious ramblings of an O'Reilly-esque culture warrior who tries to take a case instance and with no supporting rationale whatsoever make some point about what they consider to be the degradation of culture.

 

At least in this instance there is still zero evidence that video games are to blame.

[Sisyphus]

Rather weak speculation, I'd say. You could just as easily say violent video games prevent violence by letting people harmlessly blow off steam. Or that portrayal of fictional violence is trivial compared to glorification of real violence like warfare. I wouldn't call either more than idle speculation, though, since there's no solid, scientific support one way or the other.

[Haezed]

No video games were found among Cho Seung-hui's personal effects:

 

http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html

 

I was tenatively agreeing with Dr. Phil's more general point which you address next. However, I'll wait for a source other than gaygamer to tell me whether the killer played violent games.

 

As to whether video games are part of the "fiber of society" and somehow vicariously responsible, I'm going to go with "No". Humans have been violent forever. There's innumerable sources of violence we could pull out of our ass and try to pin this on. How about the war in Iraq? Or professional wrestling.

 

I agree that video games are not vicariously responsible for the VT massacre and I'm not sure if Dr. Phil was claiming as such. He was making a more general point.

 

Humans have indeed been violent forever, far more violent than they are today in America. Our civilizing culture has made a VT type action atypical which is wonderful and massively violent Video Games, perhaps, undermine that culture. I think it's a legitimate point worth discussing, although it's a bit like discussing gun control at this time. I'd almost rather defer the discussion to a time when fair comment can be made by both sides without invoking the hot button of VT.

 

That sort of reasoning is nothing but the specious ramblings of an O'Reilly-esque culture warrior who tries to take a case instance and with no supporting rationale whatsoever make some point about what they consider to be the degradation of culture.

 

1. Ad hominem. 2. I don't think Dr. Phil was making the direct connection.

 

At least in this instance there is still zero evidence that video games are to blame.

 

Did you see the link to the more vehement lawyer on the point? He argues that just like the army conducts simulations of warfare, these games allow mass killers to simulate mass killings. Again, I wouldn't censor but that doesn't mean that it is unfair to comment regarding the social responsibility of game authors, tobacco companies or rappers. I'm simply exercising my right of free speech.

[Haezed]

Rather weak speculation, I'd say. You could just as easily say violent video games prevent violence by letting people harmlessly blow off steam. Or that portrayal of fictional violence is trivial compared to glorification of real violence like warfare. I wouldn't call either more than idle speculation, though, since there's no solid, scientific support one way or the other.

 

Fortunately, the population to be studied of these mass murders is sufficiently low that I doubt we'll ever have "solid scientific support" as to whether there is a link between games and their actions. I'm not a huge Dr. Phil fan (seen him exactly twice on TV) but I think he poses a credible theory which may be untestable and is probably a moot point given the first amendment.

 

The glorification of war point is a bit lame. I've actually noticed a healthy and more realistic trend in this regard - flags of our fathers, saving private ryan, letters from Iwo Jima - the current war movie does not glorify the act of war although it does honor the sacrifice made.

[Sisyphus]

Exactly, there is unlikely to be any real evidence. Which is why I think it's kind of silly to preface your uninformed speculation with "you cannot tell me - common sense tells you," etc.

 

And you're right, those movies paint a much more realistic (I assume, never been in combat myself...) picture. But even that can be looked at from the opposite perspective, desensitizing through realism. You're right about "honoring the sacrifices made" being the intended focus, in that as well as the ubiquitous "supporting the troops" stuff. But then, it's quite common not to particularly understand the distinction between that and glorifying war -certainly we've all witnessed that. Or, instead of directly glorifying the violence, what's glorified is the cause that justifies violence, which amounts to the same thing if you think you're being righteous, with this guy most definitely did, what with comparing himself to Christ and all.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is not that I believe all that, necessarily. I really don't know. My point is that it's possible to make lots of plausible arguments saying opposite things, and nobody can say who is right and who is wrong, so we should cut the self-assured, self-righteous crap and listen to one another.

[bascule]

I agree that video games are not vicariously responsible for the VT massacre and I'm not sure if Dr. Phil was claiming as such. He was making a more general point.

 

I don't think Dr. Phil was making the direct connection.

 

Okay, how about he wait until after a mass murder which so far has absolutely no connection to video games is out of the public spotlight to make his point?

 

Otherwise it's just "I'd like to use this recent tragedy to advance my pet theory that video games cause violent crime, even though there's no evidence that's the case here"

 

He's capitalizing on a national tragedy to try to convince people of his political views, when there is zero connection between them.

 

It's about as bad as Michael Moore trying to capitalize on Columbine to preach his message of gun control (and here I was just lauding Michael Moore for his innovative approach to dealing with Fred Phelps)

 

Ever heard of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, i.e. correlation does not imply causation? That's the first thing that's going on here. But Dr. Phil is going a step beyond that: There's not even a correlation!

 

Did you see the link to the more vehement lawyer on the point?

 

Yes, Jack Thompson is perhaps the foremost video-games-turn-you-into-violent-killers advocate out there.

 

He argues that just like the army conducts simulations of warfare, these games allow mass killers to simulate mass killings.

 

Just like Microsoft Flight Simulator will teach you how to fly a real airplane? Or how World of Warcraft will teach you how to swordfight. Godfather will teach you how to work your way up to a mafia crime boss! Starfox will teach you how to fly a spaceship.

 

As a gun owner and video game player, I can attest: The only games that even come close to letting you "simulate mass killings" are along the lines of Time Crisis or Silent Scope. These are gun games for the arcade which have simulated guns that you actually have to aim in a quasi-similar manner real ones. (and I'm sorry if my knowledge of gun games is a bit dated, I don't go to the arcade anymore) And unlike more realistic gun games like police trainer which focus on honing aiming skills, in these games you actually kill people.

 

These games abstract away all the complexity of actually operating a firearm. The firearms are light, have no recoil, let you reload by shooting offscreen, and you stand and hold them in the same position.

 

I played dozens of gun games before handling an actual firearm, and let me tell you, no video game prepared me for the experience.

 

But beyond that, compare gun games to ones like GTA and Doom/Quake/etc. which are played with a controller or keyboard/mouse. Here the separation between the actual act and the simulated one is further separated by an interface which is absolutely nothing like a gun.

 

Beyond the scope of this event, you're still stuck with correlation implies causation. There's absolutely no evidence that video games bear any responsibility for violent crime. If you want to play the correlation implies causation game, then it would appear, looking at actual data, that video games actually decrease violent crime:

 

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames

 

Again, I wouldn't censor but that doesn't mean that it is unfair to comment regarding the social responsibility of game authors, tobacco companies or rappers. I'm simply exercising my right of free speech.

 

He has the right to do so, but that still makes him an asshole. You might as well blame MC Chris, MC Lars, or Scroobius Pip for violence in rap music. (To quote Scroobius Pip: Guns, bitches, and bling were never part of the four elements, and never will be!)

 

And you're lumping video game authors in with tobacco companies? The tobacco companies make products which kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Are you claiming that video game authors do anything comparable?

[Haezed]

Exactly, there is unlikely to be any real evidence. Which is why I think it's kind of silly to preface your uninformed speculation with "you cannot tell me - common sense tells you," etc.

 

It is not silly to act on common sense if you are never going to have hard scientific evidence. Sometimes we have to go on what we have as inaction is as much a choice as action.

 

 

And you're right, those movies paint a much more realistic (I assume, never been in combat myself...) picture. But even that can be looked at from the opposite perspective, desensitizing through realism. You're right about "honoring the sacrifices made" being the intended focus, in that as well as the ubiquitous "supporting the troops" stuff. But then, it's quite common not to particularly understand the distinction between that and glorifying war -certainly we've all witnessed that.

 

I don't see anyone reasonable watching the first five mintues of saving private ryan and thinking war itself is glorified.

 

Or, instead of directly glorifying the violence, what's glorified is the cause that justifies violence, which amounts to the same thing if you think you're being righteous, with this guy most definitely did, what with comparing himself to Christ and all.

 

Some causes are worth violence. If someone intrudes into my home to kill my family, I would feel I have a sufficient cause for violence. We had a worth while cause in WWII, S. Korea, Gulf War I and in Afghanistan.

 

You seem to assume we can't reason to differences between these causes and this psychopath.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is not that I believe all that, necessarily. I really don't know. My point is that it's possible to make lots of plausible arguments saying opposite things, and nobody can say who is right and who is wrong, so we should cut the self-assured, self-righteous crap and listen to one another.

 

I am listening and I have no problem with Dr. Phil expressing his opinion.

[Sisyphus]

Ok, maybe you didn't read the last paragraph?

[Saryctos]

Jack Thomson is a tool of the highest caliber. Almost everything he uses to 'back' his arguments, any form of factoid is a fabrication of the truth.

[GutZ]

lol, well with the whole video game thing, I find it funny that you know the game they are refering too (counter-strike) thousands of people play. That game actually has professional teams that compete world wide for thousands of dollars (100,000 - 250,000). http://www.thecpl.com/league/

 

As soon as someone who goes on a killing spree plays the game (out of the 100's of thousand) suddenly these games are to blame...

 

I could understand if ...like 50% of the people who play this game will go out and kill someone, but...I think it's a bit pre-mature to assess that a person who is mental unstable was solely set off by a game, nevermind a stable person.

 

It's quite a claim...

[Haezed]

Ok, maybe you didn't read the last paragraph?

 

I did but was uncertain of your point. We're all just talking and I don't see the problem.

 

Bascule, as far as Dr. Phil "using" this moment, he's not using it for personal gain; he is using it to make what he perceives to be a personal point. That's just the way it works. When terrorists blow up buildings we talk about terrorism. When trains run off a track, we talk about train safety. Here we are searching for answers. This search shouldn't eclipse the suffering of the VT students, but it has a place.

[Haezed]

Jack Thomson is a tool of the highest caliber. Almost everything he uses to 'back' his arguments, any form of factoid is a fabrication of the truth.

 

I wasn't terribly impressed with Mr. Thomson but I think the issues is legitimate and I say this having played a few games myself.