In Part 1 of this series, I argued that the Democratic Party seems to be gradually abandoning whatever claim it once had to being the party of the First Amendment. Regrettably, examples of Democrats selling out the First Amendment are becoming more prevalent and the few champions of freedom of speech and expression left in the party are getting more difficult to find.
For example, in my previous essay, I documented how Democratic politicians were leading the charge to reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine. In today’s entry I will discuss how Democrats are now working hand-in-hand with Republicans to orchestrate what would constitute the most significant expansion of content regulation in decades–the regulation of “excessive violence” on television.
Continue reading →
The idea that the Democrats are the party of free speech and the great protectors of our nation’s First Amendment heritage has always been a bit of a myth. In reality, when you study battles over freedom of speech and expression throughout American history you quickly come to realize that there are plenty of people in both parties would like to serve as the den mothers of the American citizenry. That being said, it is generally true that there have been a few more voices in the Democratic party willing to stand in opposition to governmental attempts to regulate speech in the past.
But I’m starting to wonder where even that handful of First Amendment champions has gone. Sadly, examples of Democrats selling out the First Amendment are becoming so common that I’ve decided to start a new series to highlight recent examples of Dems actually leading the charge for increased government regulation of speech and expression. I want to stress that I’m not trying to pick on Democrats here, rather, I’m just trying to point out that–unless there is a sea change in their approach to these issues by Democrats in coming months and years–both parties now appear to be singing out of the same pro-regulatory hymnal. This constitutes an ominous threat to the future of free expression.
Today, as part of this new series, I’ll be focusing on the Democratic-led efforts to revive the hideously misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”
Continue reading →
It is too early to say for sure but there are some encouraging signs that our public policymakers are finally starting to get the point went it comes to the sensibility (and constitutional futility) of trying to regulate video game content. Just yesterday, for example, lawmakers in the District of Columbia passed legislation that establishes a program to educate consumers about existing video game ratings and console-based controls. This represents a major shift away from the regulatory approach originally floated by incoming D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty. While serving as a D.C. Councilman, Fenty introduced a bill that would have proposed the old regulatory combo of mandates and stiff fines on game retailers who didn’t enforce the city’s approved regulatory scheme.
But the new version of the bill, entitled the “Consumer Education on Video and Computer Games for Minors Act,” takes a very different approach. The bill requires the city to “Develop a consumer education program to educate consumers about the appropriateness of video and computer games for certain ago groups, which may include information on video and computer game rating systems and the manner in which parental controls can enhance the ability of parents to regulate their children’s access to video and computer games.”
In a phrase, D.C.’s new approach is “education, not regulation.” And while some might object to the idea of government promoting education efforts about video game ratings or console controls, that approach is infinitely more sensible (and constitutionally permissible) than government censorship.
Continue reading →
I’ve just released a new paper entitled “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation.” At the state and local level, over 75 measures have been proposed that would regulate the electronic gaming sector in same fashion. More importantly, another new federal bill was introduced recently that would establish a federal enforcement regime for video games sales and require ongoing regulatory scrutiny of industry practices. S. 2126, the “Family Entertainment Protection Act” (FEPA), was introduced last December by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) to limit the exposure of children to violent video games.
In my essay, I address several of the most common myths or misperceptions that are driving this push to regulate the electronic gaming sector. My general conclusions are as follows:
>> The industry’s ratings system is the most sophisticated, descriptive, and effective ratings system ever devised by any major media sector in America.
>> The vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes.
>> Just as every state law attempting to regulate video games so far has been struck down as unconstitutional, so too will the FEPA.
>> The FEPA could derail the industry’s voluntary ratings system and necessitate the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime / ratings system.
>> No correlation between video games and aggressive behavior has been proven. Moreover, almost every social / cultural indicator of importance has been improving in recent years and decades even as media exposure and video game use among youth has increased.
>> Video games might have some beneficial effects–especially of a cathartic nature–that critics often overlook. And, contrary to what some critics claim, violent themes and images have been part of literature and media for centuries.
I encourage you to read the entire paper for more details. It can be found online here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proposed new legislation on Thursday that would make it a federal offense for retailers to sell a minor a video game that includes violent or sexual themes. Her bill would impose a $5000 fine on any retailer that sold a youngster a game that was classified as mature or violent under the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system.
The Clinton bill might best be thought of as a “hanging the industry with its own rope” regulatory scheme. That is, her bill would hijack the industry’s voluntary ratings system and then use it against them (and retailers) should someone choose to sell a game with mature or violent themes to someone under the age of 18.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.