Video Games and Freedom - Salem-News.Com

(SALEM, Ore.) - Lately the hue and cry is rising again to restrict, control or ban video games. There are the claims that the games foster violence in those who play them. There are those who consider the games 'addictive'. Hogwash!

There is nothing addictive to video games any more than anything else. Weak-willed folks who have other serious character flaws like (but not limited to) immaturity or irresponsibility may lack the personal control ability to play games (or do anything else for that matter) in moderation. But that does not make video games 'addictive'.

Anti-gaming crusader Jack Thompson and his motley crew of censor-happy zealots stop at nothing to achieve their goals of censorship. Lying, misrepresenting and fabrication are their stock in trade. If the facts do not support them they make up a line of sophistry to do the trick.

They point to some kids who exhibit violent tendencies who play games ignoring the far greater number who play the same games and do not exhibit such tendencies.

And if they are wanting violence they should just keep angering the tens of millions of gamers who are getting sick and tired of these mindless censors spewing their ignorant pap.

They are GAMES. They are for entertainment. They are not, as some nitwits have claimed, serial killer trainers.

And they can even train useful real skills. The military and other aspects of the government and the private sector have realized this. Not every game is a shooter... a lot force you to think, to analyze, to interact with others and so on.

Games today are a lot more complex than Twister. And that is a good thing. As for shooters and the like there is a cathartic aspect to blowing the crap out of things in a safe environment. But that does not mean we plan to get an Uzi and shoot up the neighborhood.

Freedom, even in Salem, Oregon, is defined not by what is restricted but what is allowed. And the price of freedom, as Thomas Jefferson said, is eternal vigilance. We forget that at the peril of our losing that very freedom in the future.

The lying hucksters of the anti-gaming crusader model make one outlandish claim after another, each one disproven more easily than the one before. It would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.

Censorship attempts in all venues are rampant. Libraries and book stores are constantly hounded by narrow-minded zealots to ban this book or that book from their shelves. Anti-gaming crusaders want to ban anything more controversial than Jenga. Even in online forums those who cannot make cogent arguments seek to ban those they disagree with.

Me? I don't want to ban anyone or restrict any speech or expression that is not libelous or slanderous or inherently incitatory. Those are pretty much the only limits the first amendment allows, and even more so the Oregon Constitution which has the strongest and broadest free speech and expression protections in the nation.

Some consider this a bad thing. People like Kevin Mannix who every few years try and rape our State's Constitution so they can implement their plans for censorship.

Leave the games and gamers alone and stop giving those with clear character flaws that they really need to work on an out that they can use to blame games or anything or anyone but themselves for their own choices and the consequences, for good or ill, of those choices they make.

People need to grow up. Coddling them, kids or adults, does not help anyone grow up. It just perpetuates their immaturity.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark December 15, 2007 12:55 pm (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Obviously; you chose "control". Our difference is essentially the level, intensity, cost to society, and other rational, reasonable considerations involved in the inevitable "surround" I attributed to that word. WOrth full-scale debate, which is why it often is at the heart of matters with the Supremes. But this is neither time, nor place, nor is there any further necessity, once the difference is on record.

Neal Feldman December 15, 2007 12:08 pm (Pacific time)

Henry 0 I do not think control, as in self control, is too strong a word. Either a person is in control of their actions or they are not. If they are not they need to be institutionalized for their own safety, the safety of others and that of society. Merely pointing out my position regards yo those who truly and honestly 'cannot control themselves'. The laws and such in society are for those of us who are in control of our actions. The do not apply to those who are not. (not guilty by reason of etc). Ah well...

Henry Ruark December 15, 2007 6:19 am (Pacific time)

Neal et al: "Control" is strong word, means about what user makes it mean by what surrounds it. Very fact you writing as you do in Op Ed is in itself clear demonstration of action at least "to inform" (!), and beyond that, often, "to persuade". Which entails responsibility to do so without undue intensities, devolving into differential abuse depending on opposition-strength and statement. Without that, "conversation" here descends into quarrelsome confrontation a la some poor-neighborhood street corners, with same inevitable consequences. We all deserve better than that from each other, in open, honest, democratic channel supplied at large cost in both dollars and convenience.

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 11:53 pm (Pacific time)

Anne - How is don't start idiotic? If I have trouble controlling my gambling or drinking or whatever I *always* have the choice to avoid the activity... and the intelligent choice is to do just that. Myself, I gamble only with what I can afford to lose. If that is gone I stop. I do not mortgage the house hoping my luck will change. My gaming is dfone with time I can afford to spend on it. If I have nothing to do all weekend I COULD play 72 hrs straight but I generally do not (except that one time for a specific planned purpose). But I have my pda listing whaty I need to do (shopping, dr appts, meetings, etc etc etc) and so long as those things get done and my social obligations are met I can play as much as I like. No harm. Those who cannot play without neglecting their responsibilities should employ means to limit themselves or, as stated, 'don't start' in the first place. It is mature and responsible to know one's strengths, weaknesses and limitations and to act with them in mind. It is immature and irresponsible to do otherwise, and it is the sign of a weak will to not be able to discipline oneself accordingly. Poor decision making skills, immaturity, irresponsibility... these are character flaws. Or if one hasd mental impairments but refuses to take them into account in decision making (irresponsibility) that is equally a character flaw. The AMA and APA as you admitted have a monetary inducement. But as organizations they try to not judge. As an individual I am allowed to judge. And I do so. And for all the good the learned folks in those organizations might mean or do, they come up with quite a lot of stupid nonsense... much of which is just used by folks playing the Blame Game. "See? It aint my fault I can't hold a job because I can't stay off World of Warcraft or can't stop drinking myself into a stupor or lost my car gambling... the AMA and APA say so!" These policies and pronouncements do nothing but give the immature and irresponsible and lazy carte blanche to never change and never take responsibility for their own actions, inactions and choices. Sorry, but on the whole I find this harmful to society, these poor misled individuals and espoecially those around them who are often harmed by the misbehavior of them. How infuriating it must be for the wife and four kids of the clown who cannot get off WoW long enough to keep his job when they are all kicked out onto the street since he lost his job and could not pay the rent. Are the AMA and APA going to house, clothe and feed this family devastated by the immaturity and irresponsibility of this husband and father they gave permission to with their ammunition for excuse-making?? Highly doubtful. Like I said, if they can control themselves they should do so. If they cannot control themselves they should be put away so as to not present a hazard to themselves or others. But for some reason this logic evades you. Why? Ah well...

Anne December 14, 2007 2:49 pm (Pacific time)

"I accept such if it is proven. So far it has not been." Again, the AMA and APA disagree and there are vast amounts of research out there available for your edification. I realize that you believe their stance is dollar-driven but that appears both a convenient and paranoid way to eliminate the possibility of anyone offering any such requested "proof". As for "don't start" being a solution to addiction?? I presume even you realize the idiocy of this suggestion.

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 1:50 pm (Pacific time)

Henry - yes, to me, but I am not trying to control or limit anyone now am I? Such is not the case for the Jack Thompsons or Laura Malloys of the world, right? Ah well...

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 1:48 pm (Pacific time)

Anne - I accept such if it is proven. So far it has not been. Im kind of old fashioned in many way, one of which is holding folks responsible for their actions and their choices. Silly me. Most if not all of those you refer to are just playing the Blame Game to ecuse their own failings. Cannot stop gambling? Don't gamble. Develop a spine. Can't stop having sex? Don't start, or use other means of limit/control. The 'I cannot help myself!' cry to me is one of two things... 1) like I said a BS Blame Game excuse or 2) admission that you are seriously mentally ill and should be institutionalized. People, IMHO, who 'cannot control themselves' are a danger to themselves and others and should not be walking the streets. So which way do you want it? But the jist of this article is whether someone through weak will, character flaw or other reasons cannot act rationally and reasonably with a thing, say video games, this is no justification to restrict, control or ban it from the vast majority who have absolutely no trouble controlling themselves regarding it. Am I any clearer? Can you hear me now? Ah well...

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 12:17 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: You got it dead-right: "not acceptable to you." But that hardly prevents, or even informs, other views based on separate, different experiences, training, interests...and, yes, character, flawed or otherwise.

Anne December 14, 2007 10:57 am (Pacific time)

Neal: "There is nothing addictive to video games any more than anything else. Weak-willed folks who have other serious character flaws like (but not limited to) immaturity or irresponsibility may lack the personal control ability to play games (or do anything else for that matter) in moderation. But that does not make video games 'addictive'." I 100% absolutely agree that there are plenty of immature, irresponsible losers out there who let themselves get sucked into playing games to the detriment of other areas of their lives. However, I have to disagree with your continued refusal to acknowledge that there are folks who have mental and/or physical impairments that lead to addictions, including to video games. You've already noted in another conversation that you acknowledge physical addictions (nicotine and other drugs)... but what about psychological dependancy aka addiction? To perhaps gambling? Or sex?

Neal Feldman December 14, 2007 10:56 am (Pacific time)

If there is shown proof it is not 'their fault' fine. But until then this coddling BS, Blame Game nonsense and excusemaking crap is not acceptable to me as legitimate. Ah well...

Henry Ruark December 14, 2007 10:46 am (Pacific time)

Neal et al: Agree whole-heartedly re any restrictions whatsoever by anyone on First Amendment (caps honor its importance !). But do not trivialize "weak will" and other "character flaws", constantly now under closer examination by cognitive scientists, with more findings indicating an essential physical situation sometimes as inescapable as a broken leg. Do NOT mean to shadow Neal's fine instincts here, just add to essential information base.

Pat December 13, 2007 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

Nice article, Neal. Do you know anyone planning to make a video game where we can shoot at Mannix?

Austin December 13, 2007 5:32 pm (Pacific time)

Good points Neal, I whole-heartedly agree that video game censorship, as well as all other forms of censorship, must be kept at bay with vigilance.

[Return to Top]