I was pleased to see the American Psychological Association’s new statement slowly reversing course on misguided past statements about video games and acts of real-world violence. As Kyle Orland reports in Ars Technica, the APA has clarified its earlier statement on this relationship between watching video game depictions of violence and actual youth behavior. The APA’s old statement said that evidence “confirms [the] link between playing violent video games and aggression.”  But the APA has come around and now says that, “there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.” More specifically, the APA says: 

The following resolution should not be misinterpreted or misused by attributing violence, such as mass shootings, to violent video game use. Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policy makers and the public. Attributing violence to violent video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors.

This is a welcome change of course because the APA’s earlier statements were being used by politicians and media activists who favored censorship of video games. Hopefully that will no longer happen.

“Monkey see, monkey do” theories of media exposure leading to acts of real-world violence have long been among the most outrageously flawed theories in the fields of psychology and media studies.  All the evidence points the opposite way, as I documented a decade ago in a variety of studies. (For a summary, see my 2010 essay, “More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime.”)

In fact, there might even be something to the “cathartic effect hypothesis,” or the idea first articulated by Aristotle (“katharsis”) that watching dramatic portrayals of violence could lead to “the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See my 2010 essay on this, “Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis.”)

Of course, this doesn’t mean that endless exposure to video game or TV and movie violence is a good thing. Prudence and good parenting are still essential. Some limits are smart. But the idea that a kid playing or watching violent act will automatically become violent themselves was always nonsense. It’s time we put that theory to rest. Thanks to the new APA statement, we are one step closer.

P.S. I recently penned an essay about my long love affair with video games that you might find entertaining: “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”

This essay originally appeared on The Bridge under the title “Confessions of a Vidiot” on July 16, 2019.

I have a confession: I’m 50 years old and still completely in love with video games.

I feel silly saying that, even though I really shouldn’t. Video games are now fully intertwined with the fabric of modern life and, by this point, there have been a couple of generations of adults who, like me, have played them actively over the past few decades. Somehow, despite the seemingly endless moral panics about video games, we came out alright. But that likely will not stop some critics from finding new things to panic over.

As a child of the 1970s, I straddled the divide between the old and new worlds of gaming. I was (and remain) obsessed with board and card games, which my family played avidly. But then Atari’s home version of “Pong” landed in 1976. The console had rudimentary graphics and controls, and just one game to play, but it was a revelation. After my uncle bought Pong for my cousins, our families and neighbors would gather round his tiny 20-inch television to watch two electronic paddles and a little dot move around the screen.

Every kid in the world immediately began lobbying their parents for a Pong game of their own, but then a year later something even more magical hit the market: Atari’s 2600 gaming platform. It was followed by Mattel’s “Intellivision” and Coleco’s “ColecoVision.” The platform wars had begun, and home video games had gone mainstream.

My grandmother, who lived with us at the time, started calling my brother and me “vidiots,” which was short for “video game idiots.” My grandmother raised me and was an absolute treasure to my existence, but when it came to video games (as well as rock music), the generational tensions between us were omnipresent. She was constantly haranguing my brother and me about how we were never going to amount to much in life if we didn’t get away from those damn video games!

I used to ask her why she never gave us as much grief about playing board or card games. She thought those were mostly fine. There was just something about the electronic or more interactive nature of video games that set her and the older generation off.

And, of course, there was the violence. There is no doubt that video games contained violent themes and images that were new to the gaming experience. In the analog gaming era, violent action was left mostly to the imagination. With electronic games, it was right there for us to see in all its (very bloody) glory.

As depictions of violence in video games became more intense, parental anxiety boiled over into political activism. By the early 1990s, complaints by parent groups and politicians escalated and congressional hearings commenced. This was the Nintendo and Sega era, when games like “Mortal Kombat” and “Night Trap” were capturing attention for their violent themes.

By this time, I had moved to Washington, DC and taken a job with a think tank. I was a young researcher covering media and telecommunications policy issues, so I had both a personal and professional interest in covering video game hearings. What ensued was a media spectacle in which an endless parade of politicians and self-anointed “parent advocates” expressed their concerns about various games and the supposed lost generation of kids playing them.

The first major congressional hearing on video game violence that I attended in 1993 included then-Sen. Joe Lieberman and other lawmakers speaking with disgust and furrowed brows as they watched clips from those games. But most of us twenty-somethings in the hearing room were rolling our eyes through the entire spectacle. I distinctly remember hearing a Capitol Hill staffer that I was sitting next to whisper, “This is the greatest ad for getting a Sega Genesis ever!” Following the hearing, several friends and I went to my house and played Mortal Kombat together just for kicks.

As the decade went on and gamers began enjoying a third generation of consoles that included Playstation and XBox, the moral panic surrounding violent video gamesrapidly intensified. This was the era of “Doom,” “Resident Evil” and then “Grand Theft Auto.” The whole world went mad.

Critics were writing books with titles like Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill and referring to video games as “murder simulators.” Every TV news outlet was running some sort of hair-raising report about how America’s youth were doomed for a life of depravity due to video games. By 2006, Sen. Lieberman and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton were floating the “Family Entertainment Protection Act” to create a federal enforcement regime for video games ratings and sales. Court battles ensued over the constitutionality of restrictions on video game sales.

During this push for video game censorship, I wrote many essays, papers, and even contributed to court filings in which I poured over the evidence—or rather the lack thereof—for what we might think of as the “monkey see-monkey do” theory of human behavior. Put simply, there has never been any conclusive scientific evidence correlating video game exposure and real-world acts of violence. If this theory held any water, at some point it should have shown up in crime statistics either here or abroad. But it hasn’t.

In fact, over the past two decades, the US population has grown from 270 million in 1998 to 325 million today, and video games have grown in popularity over that same period. At the same time, according to FBI data, overall violent crime has fallen by almost 19 percent, and for adolescents ages 12 to 20, every class of crime plummeted over the same period.

To be sure, video games—violent or otherwise—can give rise to some problems worth worrying about. Addiction is a real concern, and not just for juveniles. Again, I’m an old man, but I still play far too many games on my phone when I could be doing other things. That’s not technically addiction, but it sure feels like it sometimes. When our kids, or even some adults, go overboard with game time, they need strategies to find a better balance. That has always been a legitimate issue deserving attention.

But the people and politicians who engaged in panics and proselytizing about the supposed evils of video games went much too far. What they failed to realize—as almost all cultural critics have mistakenly done throughout history—is that humans are more sensible and resilient than they assume. We can muddle through and find a reasonable balance.

Indeed, a great many first and second generation gamers are now raising kids and actively gaming with them. My teenage son and I play multiple games together and are part of many different leagues and teams. On our phones, we play “Boom Beach” and other games together, often with groups of other father and son gamers. At home, we love to play “Star Wars: Battlefront” and we are absolutely infatuated with the alien bug-killing “Earth Defense Force” games.

A few years back, my son and I got so good at the game “Toy Soldiers: Cold War” that we were briefly ranked in the top 15 globally. We also play a lot of board games together. I now include him in monthly poker nights at my house, where he has become quite the card shark, regularly depriving many of my adult friends of their money.

My strategy with my son and gaming activity has been simple: stay involved, be open-minded, and set reasonable limits. Oh sure, there are games he plays that I find silly and worthless. But I try to talk to him about all of them and get a better understanding of what they are about. And I encourage him—not always successfully—to get off the couch and go outside to get plenty of outdoor playtime in, too.

While heavy-handed regulatory efforts have been beaten back, we can expect moral panics to continue as video games become even more interactive and immersive. We aging gamers should be willing to hear out concerns about those new gaming themes and capabilities and consider reasonable responses.

If we have learned anything from the first half century of video game history, it is that over-reaction is never the right response. Whether you are a parent or a politician, try to be patient and willing to talk to kids in an open and understanding fashion about things you might not appreciate at first.

Now please excuse me while my son and I get back to killing some alien bugs and saving the Earth once more!

Additional Reading :

• The Social Science Debate over Violent Video Games Will Never End
• Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis
• More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime
• Video Games, Free Speech & the Lunacy of “Ecogenerism”
• Video Games and “Moral Panic”
• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector.” In this 73-page working paper, which we hope to place in a law review or political science journal shortly, we document the evolution of government-granted privileges, or “cronyism,” in the information and communications technology marketplace and in the media-producing sectors. Specifically, we offer detailed histories of rent-seeking and regulatory capture in: the early history of the telephony and spectrum licensing in the United States; local cable TV franchising; the universal service system; the digital TV transition in the 1990s; and modern video marketplace regulation (i.e., must-carry and retransmission consent rules, among others.

Our paper also shows how cronyism is slowly creeping into new high-technology sectors.We document how Internet companies and other high-tech giants are among the fastest-growing lobbying shops in Washington these days. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying spending by information technology sectors has almost doubled since the turn of the century, from roughly $200 million in 2000 to $390 million in 2012.  The computing and Internet sector has been responsible for most of that growth in recent years. Worse yet, we document how many of these high-tech firms are increasingly seeking and receiving government favors, mostly in the form of targeted tax breaks or incentives.

We argue that the creeping cronyism could have two major negative ramifications. First, it could dull entrepreneurialism and competition in this highly innovative sector since time and resources spent on influencing politicians and capturing regulators cannot be spent competing and innovating in the marketplace. Cronyism will also negatively impact consumer welfare by denying consumers more and better products and services. Additionally, consumers might end up paying higher prices or higher taxes due to government privileges for industry.

Second, cronyism also raises the specter of greater government control of the Internet and of the digital economy. When policymakers dispense favors, they usually expect something in return. They also become accustomed to having greater informal powers over the sector receiving favors, and contribute to DC’s infamous “revolving door” problem.

High-tech America’s recent embrace of Washington could take it down the familiar path followed by the agriculture, telecommunications, and automotive sectors (among many others), with government becoming both protector and punisher of industry. Today’s dynamic tech industries will increasingly come under the “Mother, may I?” permission-based regulatory regime that encumbered the older information technology sectors.

Finally, this paper offers strategies for stalling and diminishing the cronyism already taking root in the high-tech sector. We suggest several targeted reforms to limit or undo cronyism. Generally speaking, however, we note that, as economist David R. Henderson argued in an earlier Mercatus Center report, “There is only one way to end, or at least to reduce, the amount of cronyism, and that is to reduce government power.”

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd. The Scribd version is embedded down below. (Also, here’s some coverage of the paper over at the Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” from our old colleague Tim Lee. Here’s more coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek and the San Francisco Chronicle. And here’s a U.S. News oped that Brent and I wrote condensing our paper into just 600 words. Finally, a short 3-minute video of me discussing the problem of tech cronyism is also embedded below.)

A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector [Thierer and Skorup – July 2013] by Adam Thierer

I’m pretty rough on all the Internet and info-tech policy books that I review. There are two reasons for that. First, the vast majority of tech policy books being written today should never have been books in the first place. Most of them would have worked just fine as long-form (magazine-length) essays. Too many authors stretch a promising thesis into a long-winded, highly repetitive narrative just to say they’ve written an entire book about a subject. Second, many info-tech policy books are poorly written or poorly argued. I’m not going to name names, but I am frequently unimpressed by the quality of many books being published today about digital technology and online policy issues.

The books of Harvard University cyberlaw scholars John Palfrey and Urs Gasser offer a welcome break from this mold. Their recent books, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, and Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems, are engaging and extremely well-written books that deserve to be books. There’s no wasted space or mindless filler. It’s all substantive and it’s all interesting. I encourage aspiring tech policy authors to examine their works for a model of how a book should be done.

In a 2008 review, I heaped praise on Born Digital and declared that this “fine early history of this generation serves as a starting point for any conversation about how to mentor the children of the Web.” I still recommend highly to others today. I’m going to be a bit more critical of their new book, Interop, but I assure you that it is a text you absolutely must have on your shelf if you follow digital policy debates. It’s a supremely balanced treatment of a complicated and sometimes quite contentious set of information policy issues.

In the end, however, I am concerned about the open-ended nature of the standard that Palfrey and Gasser develop to determine when government should intervene to manage or mandate interoperability between or among information systems. I’ll push back against their amorphous theory of “optimal interoperability” and offer an alternative framework that suggests patience, humility, and openness to ongoing marketplace experimentation as the primary public policy virtues that lawmakers should instead embrace.

Interop is Important, but Often Difficult & Filled with Trade-Offs

Palfrey and Gasser begin by noting that “there is no single, agreed-upon definition of interoperability” and that “there are even many views about what interop is and how it should be achieved” (p. 5). They set out to change that by developing “a normative theory identifying what we want out of all this interconnectivity” that the information age has brought us (p. 3).

Generally speaking, Palfrey and Gasser believe increased interoperability — especially among information networks and systems — is a good thing because it “provides consumers greater choice and autonomy” (p. 57), “is generally good for competition and innovation” (p. 90), and “can lead to systemic efficiencies” (p. 129).

But they wisely acknowledge that there are trade-offs, too, noting that “this growing level of interconnectedness comes at an increasingly high price” (p. 2). Whether we are talking about privacy, security, consumer choice, the state of competition, or anything else, Palfrey and Gasser argue that “the problems of too much interconnectivity present enormous challenges both for organizations and for society at large” (p. 2). Their chapter and privacy and security offers many examples, but one need only look around at their own digital existence to realize the truth of this paradox. The more interconnected our information systems become, and the more intertwined our social and economic lives become with those systems, the greater the possibility of spam, viruses, data breaches, and various types of privacy or reputational problems. Interoperability giveth and it taketh away.

When Does “the Public Interest” Demand Interoperability Regulation?

So, how do we know when increased interoperability is good for us or society? How do we strike a reasonable balance? And, most controversially, when should government intervene to tip the balance in one direction or another?

Palfrey and Gasser return to these questions repeatedly throughout the book but admit that their answers will be dissatisfying since “there is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance” (p. 76). Thus, “most of the specifics of how to bring interop about [must] be determined on a case-by-case basis (p. 17). They elaborate:

That can feel unsatisfying. But it is an essential truth: the most interesting interop problems relate to society’s most complex and most fundamental systems. Their answers are never simple to come by, nor are they easy to implement. This characteristic of interop theory is a feature, not a bug. … The price to be paid for striving for a universal principle at the level of theory is that such a theory is full of nuances when it comes to application and practice (p. 17-18).

Fair enough. Yet, Palfrey and Gasser also make it clear they want government(s) to play an active role in ensuring optimal interoperability. They say they favor “blended approaches that draw upon the comparative advantages of the private and public sector” (p. 161), but they argue that government should feel free to tip or nudge interoperability determinations in superior directions. “If deployed with skill,” they argue, “the law can play a central role in ensuring that we get as close as possible to optimal levels of interoperability in complex systems” (p. 88).

That phrase — “optimal level of interoperability” — pops up repeatedly throughout the book. So, too, does the phrase “the public interest.” Palfrey and Gasser argue that governments must look out for “the public interest” and “optimal interoperability” since “market forces do not automatically lead to appropriate standards or to the adoption of the best available technology” (p. 167). Here they introduce two additional amorphous values that complicate the debate: “appropriate standards” and “best available technology.”

The fundamental problem this “public interest” approach to interoperability regulation is that it is no better than the “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” standard we sometimes at work in the realm of speech regulation. It’s an empty vessel, and if it is the lodestar by which policymakers make determinations about the optimal level of interoperability, then it leaves markets, innovators, and consumers subject to the arbitrary whims of what a handful of politicians or regulators think constitutes “optimal interoperability,” “appropriate standards,” and “best available technology.”

On the Limits of Knowledge

Palfrey and Gasser’s framework feels more than just “unsatisfying” in this regard; it feels downright insufficient. That’s because it is missing a major variable: the extent to which state actors are able to adequately define those terms or accurately forecast the future needs of markets or citizen-consumers.

Surprisingly, Palfrey and Gasser don’t really spend much time discussing the specific remedies the state might impose to achieve optimal interoperability. I would have liked to have seen them develop a matrix of interop options and then outline the strengths and weaknesses of each. But even absent a more detailed discussion of possible regulatory remedies, I would have settled for more concrete answers to the following questions: Why are we to assume that regulators possess the requisite knowledge needed to know when it makes sense to foreclose ongoing marketplace experimentation? And why should we trust that, by substituting their own will for that of countless other actors in the information technology marketplace, we will be left better off?

The closest Palfrey and Gasser get to defining a firm standard for when and why such state intervention is warranted comes on page 173 when they are discussing the need for the state to establish sound reasons for intervention. They argue:

The objective should not be interoperability per se but, rather, one or more public policy goal to which interoperability can lead. The goals that usually make sense are innovation and competition, but other objectives might include consumer choice, ease of use of a technology or system, diversity, and so forth (p. 173).

This is a bit better, but it still doesn’t fully grapple with the cost side of the cost-benefit calculus for intervention. Palfrey and Gasser are willing to at least acknowledge some of those problems when they remark that “the state is rarely in a position to call a winner among competing technologies” (p. 174). Moreover,

Lawmakers need to keep in view the limits of their own effectiveness when it comes to accomplishing optimal levels of interoperability. Case studies of government intervention, especially where complex information technologies are involved, show that states tend to be ill suited to determine on their own what specific technology will be the best option for the future (p. 175)

Quite right! Yet, that insight does not seem to influence their calls elsewhere in the book for regulatory activism. That’s a shame since the admonition about policymakers recognizing the “limits of their own effectiveness” should be able to help us devise some limiting principles regarding the state’s role.

Toward an Alternative Theory: Experimental, Evolutionary Interoperability

Allow me to offer a different theory of optimal interoperability that flows from these previous insights. It’s based on a more dynamic view of markets and the central importance of experimentation in the face of uncertainty. Let me just go ahead and articulate the core principles of what I will refer to as  “experimental, evolutionary interoperability theory.” Then I’ll explain it in more detail

• Experimental, evolutionary interoperability : The theory that ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses. The latter (regulatory foreclosure of experimentation) limits that potential.

Palfrey and Gasser would label this a “laissez-faire” theory of interoperability and oppose it since they believe “a pure laissez-faire approach to interop rarely works out well” (p. 160). But they are wrong, at least to the extent they include the sweeping modifier “rarely” to describe this model’s effectiveness. In reality, the vast majority of interoperability that occurs into today’s information economy happens in a completely natural, evolutionary fashion without any significant state intervention whatsoever. In countless small and big ways alike, interconnection and interoperability happens every day throughout society. Yes, it is true that interoperability often happens against the backdrop of a legal system that allows court action to enforce certain rights or address perceived harms, but I would not classify that as a significant direct state intervention to tip or nudge interconnection decisions in one direction or another. And when interoperability doesn’t happen naturally, there are often good reasons it doesn’t and, even if there aren’t, non-interop spawns beneficial marketplace reactions and innovations.

Experimental, evolutionary interoperability theory flows out of Schumpeterian competition theory and the related field of evolutionary economics, but it is also heavily influenced by public choice theory (which stresses the limitations of romanticized theories of politics, planning, and “public interest” regulation). This alternative theory begins by accepting the simple fact that, as Austrian economist F.A. Hayek taught us, “progress by its very nature cannot be planned.” The wiser man, Hayek noted, “is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the right ones or even that we can find all the answers.”

Ongoing experimentation with varying business models and modalities of social and economic production allows us to see what consumer choice and trial and error experimentation yields naturally over time. Ongoing experiments with flexible, voluntary interop standards and negotiations also allows us to determine which technological standards seem to benefit consumers in the short-term while also encouraging innovators to leap-frog existing standards and platforms when they become locked-in for too long or seem sub-optimal.

In the short-term, it is entirely possible that such voluntary, evolutionary interop experiments “fail” in various ways. That is often a good thing. Failures are how individuals and a society learn to cope with change and devise systems and solutions to accommodate technological change. As Samuel Beckett once counseled: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.” Progress depends upon an embrace of this uncertainty and acceptance of a world of constant upheaval if we are to learn how to cope, adapt, and move forward.

In this model, technological innovation often springs from the quest for the prize of market power.  Palfrey and Gasser generally reject this Schumpeterian vision of dynamic competition, but they at least do a nice job of describing it:

firms may have a stronger incentive to be innovative when low levels of interoperability promise higher or even monopoly profits. This sort of competition… creates incentives for firms to come up with entirely new generations of technologies or business methods that are proprietary (p. 121).

They reject this approach based on (1) the mistaken notion that the quest of the prize of market power ends in the attainment and preservation of that market power; and (2) the belief that policymakers possess the ability to set us on a better course through wise interventions.

In a moment, I’ll prove why that is misguided by examining a few real-world cases studies. For now, however, let’s return to Palfrey & Gasser’s central operating principle and contrast it with the vision I’ve articulated here. Recall that they argue “it is important to maintain and facilitate diversity in the marketplace. We simply want systems to work together when we want them to and to not work together when we do not.” Again, there is no standard here if one is suggesting this as the principle by which to determine when state intervention is desirable . But if one is looking at that aspirational statement as a description of the natural order of things — namely, that we do indeed “want systems to work together when we want them to and to not work together when we do not” — then that is a perfectly sound principle for understanding why state intervention should be disfavored in all but the most extreme circumstances. To reiterate: We should not allow the state to foreclose interoperability experiments because (a) those experiments have value in and of themselves, and (b) state action is likely to have myriad unintended consequences and unforeseen costs that are not easily remedied or reversed.

There are moments in the book when Palfrey and Gasser appear somewhat sympathetic to the sort of alternative “evolutionary interop” theory I have articulated here. For example, they note that:

The web is a great equalizer for technology firms. As consumers, we have come to expect that everything will work together without incident or interruption. We think it bizarre when something in the digitally networked world does not mesh with something else, perceiving whatever it is to be broken, in need of repair. This high degree of expectation is a powerful driver of interoperability. Market players are increasingly responding to this consumer demand and making these invisible links work for their customers without any government intervention” (p. 28) [italics added]

You won’t be surprised to hear that I agree wholeheartedly! Moreover, what it really proves is that ongoing marketplace experimentation and the evolution of norms and standards generally solve interoperability problems as they develop. That doesn’t mean markets are perfectly competitive or always produce perfect interoperability. But, again, why should we believe state intervention will do a better job? And isn’t it possible that intervention could negatively counter those natural instincts that Palfrey and Gasser describe about how consumers and market actors interact to make those “invisible links” work out as nicely as they do today?

Interop, Competition & Innovation: Some Cases Studies of Evolutionary Interoperability in Action

To better explain experimental, evolutionary interop theory and how it plays out in the real-world, let’s examine the complex relationship between interoperability, competition, and innovation in the information economy through the prism of three case studies: AOL and instant messaging, video game consoles, and smartphones.

AOL

America Online’s (AOL) case study is probably the most profound example of Schumpeterian creative destruction rapidly eroding the market power of a once “dominant” digital giant. Not long ago, AOL was cast as the great villain of online openness and interoperability. In fact, when Lawrence Lessig penned his acclaimed book Code in the late 1990s, AOL was supposedly set to become the corporate enslaver of cyberspace.

For a time, it was easy to see why Lessig and others were worried. Twenty five million subscribers were willing to pay $20 per month to get a guided tour of AOL’s walled garden version of the Internet. Then AOL and media titan Time Warner announced a historic mega-merger that had some predicting the rise of “new totalitarianisms” and corporate “Big Brother.”

Fearing the worst, several conditions were placed on approval of the merger by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission. These included “open access” provisions that forced Time Warner to offer the competing ISP service from the second largest ISP at that time (Earthlink) before it made AOL’s service available across its largest cable divisions.  Another provision imposed by the FCC mandated interoperability of instant messaging systems based on the fear that AOL was poised to monopolize that emerging technology.

Palfrey and Gasser suggest this was a necessary and effective intervention. “The AOL IM case is another instance in which the role of government was key in establishing a more interoperable ecosystem” and they credit the FCC’s action with cutting AOL’s share of the IM (p. 68-9). That’s a huge stretch. The reality is that markets and technologies evolved around AOL’s walled garden and decimated whatever advantage the firm had in either the web portal business or instant messaging market.

First, despite all the hand-wringing and regulatory worry, AOL’s merger with Time Warner quickly went off the rails and AOL’s online “dominance” quickly evaporated. Looking back at the deal with TW, Fortune magazine senior editor Allan Sloan called it the “turkey of the decade” since it cost shareholders hundreds of billions. Second, AOL’s attempt to construct the largest walled garden ever also failed miserably as organic search and social networking flourished. Consumers showed they demanded more than the hand-held tour of cyberspace.

Finally, the hysteria about AOL’s threat to monopolize instant messaging and deny interoperability proved particularly unwarranted and also serves as a cautionary tale for those who argue regulation is needed to solve interoperability problems. At the time, well-heeled major competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft already had significant competing IM platforms, and others were rapidly developing. Interoperability among those systems was also spontaneously developing as consumers demanded greater flexibility among and within their communications systems. The development of Trillian, which allowed IM users to see all their various IM feeds at once, was an early precursor of what was to come. Today, anyone can download a free chat client like Digsby or Adium to manage multiple IM and email services from Yahoo!, Google, Facebook and just about anyone else, all within a single interface, essentially making it irrelevant which chat service friends use.

In a truly Schumpetrian sense, innovators came in and disrupted AOL’s plans to dominate instant messaging with innovative offerings that few critics or regulators would have believed possible just a decade ago. Progress happened, and nobody planned it from above. The FCC’s IM interoperability provision was quietly sunset less than three years after its inception since the evolution of technology and markets had rapidly eliminated the perceived problem. That mandate, as it turned out, wasn’t needed at all, and all it probably accomplished during its short life span was to hobble AOL’s ability to find a way to remain relevant in the increasingly competitive Web. 2.0 world.

Video game consoles

At first blush, the video game console wars might seem like the ideal case study for those who favor greater interoperability regulation. After all, in a static sense, why do we really need several competing video game platforms that prevent consumers from playing their games on more than one system? The lack of console interoperability also drives up development costs for game makers. Many of those developers would prefer to just code games for a single, universal gaming platform. Therefore, isn’t this the perfect excuse for state intervention to ensure “optimal interoperability”?

To the contrary, this is another example of why government should generally avoid intervening to try to achieve some sort of artificial optimal interoperability. This market has undergone continuous, turbulent change and witnessed remarkable pro-consumer innovation despite a lack of interoperability.

The video game console wars have raged since the late 1970s. The first generation of consoles was dominated Atari (2600), Mattel (Intellivision), and Coleco (ColecoVision). By the mid-1980s, the industry saw a new cast of characters displace the old players. Nintendo (NES), and Sega (Genesis) took the lead. Atari attempted a rebirth with its “Jaguar” console but failed miserably.

The demise of Atari’s 2600 console was particularly notable. When it debuted in 1977, the system revolutionized the home game market on its way to selling more than 30 million units.  For a few years, it utterly dominated the console market and the company “rushed out games, assuming that its customers would play whatever it released,” notes New York Times reporters Sam Grobart and Ian Austen. But demand rapidly dried up as other consoles and personal computers took the lead with more powerful, flexible platforms and games. In the end, “millions of unsold games and consoles were buried in a New Mexico landfill in 1983. Warner Communications, which bought Atari in 1976 for $28 million, sold it in 1984 for no cash.”

The next generation of machines was dominated by Nintendo and Sega. But by the turn of the century, more new faces appeared and disrupted the second generation of market leaders. Sony (PlayStation) and Microsoft (Xbox) introduced powerful new consoles that continue to evolve to this day. Both consoles have already cycled through three iterations, each increasingly powerful and more functional. Sega dropped out of the console business and refocused on game development. Nintendo managed to survive with its innovative “Wii” system, but has fallen from its perch as king of the console market. Many also forget Apple’s failed run at the console business with its “Pippin” system in the late 1990s. Steve Jobs killed off the console when he returned to once again lead Apple in 1997. Ironically, just a decade later, with the rise of the iPhone and the Apple App Store, the company would emerge as a major player in the gaming market as smartphone gaming exploded.

Of course, PC gaming existed across these generations and handheld gaming devices and now smartphones are also providing competition to traditional consoles. Arcade games also existed both then and now. Thus, the video game market has always been broader than just home gaming consoles.

Nonetheless, at no time during the turbulent history of this sector have major consoles interoperated. The result has been a constant effort by major console developers to leap-frog the competition with increasingly innovative and powerful consoles and peripherals. Would Microsoft have developed the Kinect motion-sensing device if Nintendo had not previously developed their game-changing Wii motion controllers? It’s impossible to know but it would seem that non-interoperability had something to do with that beneficial development. Microsoft needed a game-changing peripheral of its own to meet the Nintendo challenge since Nintendo was not about to share its innovations with the competition. Meanwhile, Sony has developed its own motion-based “Move” system to compete Microsoft and Nintendo.

This is a highly dynamic marketplace at work. Could policymakers have determined that 3 major non-interoperable home consoles would have produced so much innovation? Would they have judged that to be too much or too little competition?  Would they have been able to foresee or help bring about the disruptive competition from portable gaming devices or smartphones? What sort of interop regulation would have made that happen?

As Palfrey and Gasser suggest in their book, there really “is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance.” The video game case study seems to prove that. Yet, their framework leaves the door open a bit wider for state meddling to determine “optimal interop.” I have little faith that state planners could have given us a more innovative video game marketplace through interop nudging. And I also worry that if the door had been open for regulators at the FCC or elsewhere to influence interoperability decisions, it might have also opened to the door to content regulation since many lawmakers have long had an appetite for video game censorship.

Smartphones

The mobile phone handset and operating system marketplace has undergone continuous change over the past 15 years and is still evolving rapidly. There are some interoperable elements, such as the ability to make connecting calls and send texts and IMs. But other parts of the smartphone ecosystem are not interoperable, such as underlying operating systems or apps and app stores.

In the midst of this mixed system of interoperable and non-interoperable elements, innovation and cut-throat competition have flourished.

When cellular telephone service first started taking off in the mid-1990s, handsets and mobile operating systems were essentially one in the same, and Nokia and Motorola dominated the sector with fairly rudimentary devices. The era of personal digital assistants (PDAs) dawned during this period, but mostly saw a series of overhyped devices, including Apple’s “Newton,” that failed to catch on. In the early 2000s, however, a host of new players and devices entered the market, many of which are still on the scene today, including LG, Sony, Samsung, Siemens, and HTC. Importantly, the sector began splitting into handsets versus operating systems (OS). Leading mobile OS makers have included: Microsoft, Palm, Symbian, BlackBerry (RIM), Apple, and Android (Google).

The sector continues to undergo rapid change and interoperability norms have evolved at the same time. Looking back, it’s hard to know whether increased interoperability would have helped or hurt the state of competition and innovation.

Consider Palm, Blackberry, and Microsoft which all limited interoperability with other systems in various ways. Palm smartphones were wildly popular for a brief time and brought many innovations to the marketplace, for example. Palm underwent many ownership and management changes, however, and rapidly faded from the scene.  After buying Palm in 2010, HP announced it would use its webOS platform in a variety of new products.  That effort failed, however, and HP instead announced it would transition webOS to an open source software development mode.

Similarly, RIM’s BlackBerry was thought to be the dominant smartphone device for a time, but it has recently been decimated. BlackBerry’s rollercoaster ride has left it “trying to avoid the hall of fallen giants” in the words of an early 2012 New York Times headline.  The company once commanded more than half of the American smartphone market but now has under 10 percent, and that number continues to fall.

Microsoft also had a huge lead in licensing its Windows Mobile OS to high-end smartphone handset makers until Apple and Android disrupted its business. It’s hard to believe now, but just a few years ago the idea of Apple or Google being serious contenders in the smartphone business was greeted with suspicion, even scorn by popular handset makers such as Nokia and Motorola. This serves as another classic example of those with a static snapshot mentality disregarding the potential for new entry and technological disruption. Just a few years later, Nokia’s profits and market share have plummeted and a struggling Motorola was purchased by Google. Meanwhile, again, Palm seems dead, BlackBerry is dying, and Microsoft is struggling to win back market share it has lost to Apple and Google in this arena.

It would seem logical to conclude that the ebbs and flows of interoperable and non-interoperable elements of the smartphone world have created a turbulent but vibrantly innovative sector. Has the lack of interoperable operating systems or apps and apps stores hurt smartphone consumers? It’s hard to see how. Mandating interoperability at either level could lead to an OS or app store monopoly, most likely for Apple if such a policy were pursued today.

While Apple has had great success and earned endless kudos for their slick, user-friendly innovations from consumers and tech wonks alike, some critics decry their proprietary business model and more “controlled” user experience. Apple tightly controls almost every level of production of its iPhone smartphone and iPad tablet. Interoperability with competing systems, standards, or technologies is limited in many ways. Is that bad? Some critics think so, suggesting that greater “openness” — presumably in the form of greater device or program interoperability — is needed. But so what? Consumers seem extremely happy with Apple devices. Moreover, well-heeled rivals like Google (Android) and Microsoft continue to innovate at a healthy clip and offer consumers a decidedly different user experience. As with video games consoles, non-interop has had some important dynamic effects and advantages for consumers. It’s hard to know what “optimal interoperability” would even look like in the modern smartphone marketplace and how it would be achieved, but it’s equally hard to believe that consumers would be significantly better off if regulators were trying to achieve it through top-down mandates on such a dynamic, fast-moving market.  [For more on this topic, see my 2011 book chapter, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters,” from the book, The Next Digital Decade.]

Case Study Summary & Analysis

These case studies suggest that defining “optimal interoperability” is a pipe dream. In some cases, consumers demanded a certain amount interoperability and they got it. But it seems equally obvious that they did not demand perfect interoperability in every case. Few consumers are tripping over their own feet in a mad rush to toss out their XBoxs or iPhones just because they are not perfectly interoperable. On the other hand, since the days of the old “walled garden” hell of AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, and so on, it would seem that information technology markets are growing more “open” in other ways. You can’t completely lock-down a user’s online experience and expect to win their business over the long haul.

Palfrey and Gasser make that point quite nicely in the book:

Increasingly, though, businesses are seeing the merits of strategies based on openness. A growing number of businesses are pursuing models that incorporate interoperability as a core principle. More and more firms, especially in the information business, are shedding their proprietary approaches in favor of interoperability at multiple levels. The goal is not to be charitable to competitors or customers, of course, but to maximize returns over time by building an ecosystem with others that holds greater promise than the go-it-alone approach (p. 149).

Quite right, but let’s not pretend that any mass market information platforms or systems will ever be perfectly “open” or interoperable. There will always be some limitations on how such systems are used or shared. And that’s just fine once you embrace a more flexible theory of evolutionary interoperability.  Ongoing experiments will get us to a better place.

Conclusion: Let Interop Experiments Continue!

So, let me wrap up by restating my alternative theory of optimal interoperability as succinctly as possible: When in doubt, ongoing, bottom-up, dynamic experimentation will almost always yield better answers than arbitrary intervention and top-down planning. Again, that is not to say that all interoperability experiments will leave society better off in the short-term. Some interoperability experiments and resulting market norms or outcomes can create challenging dilemmas for individuals and institutions. There may be short-term spells of “market power,” for example, and some standards may get locked in longer than some of us think makes sense. If, however, we have faith in humans to solve problems with information and technology, then still more experimentation — not state intervention — is the answer. And that is especially true once you accept the fact that those seeking to intervene have very limited knowledge of all the relevant facts needed to even make wise decisions about the future course of technology markets or information systems.

Some will find my alternative theory of optimal interoperability no more satisfying than Palfrey and Gasser’s since they may find the experimental interop framework too inflexible when it comes to state action. Whereas the frustration with Palfrey and Gasser’s theory will likely flow from their failure to define a coherent standard for when intervention is warranted, my approach solves that problem by suggesting we should largely abandon the endeavor and instead let ongoing market experiments solve interop problems over time. For me, we would need to find ourselves in a veritable whole-world-is-about-to-go-to-hell sort of moment before I could go along with state intervention to tip the interop scales in one direction or another. And, generally speaking, this is exactly the sort of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to address after a clear showing of harm to consumer welfare. Stated differently, to the extent any state intervention to address interoperability can be justified, ex post antitrust remedies should almost always trump ex ante regulatory meddling.

This alternative vision of evolutionary, experimental interoperability will be rejected by those who believe the state has the ability to wisely intervene and nudge markets to achieve “optimal interoperability” through some sort of Goldilocks principle that can supposedly get it just right. For those of us who have doubts about the likelihood of such sagacious state action — especially for fast-paced information sectors — the benefits of ongoing marketplace experimentation far outweigh the costs of letting those experiments run their course.

Regardless, we should be thankful that John Palfrey and Urs Gasser have provided us with a book that so perfectly frames what should be a very interesting ongoing debate over these issues. I encourage everyone to pick up a copy of Interop so you can join us in this important discussion.

Additional Reading:

• the official book site
• buy the book on Amazon or Barnes & Noble
• Follow the authors on Twitter: @JPalfrey & @UGasser
• a video of their Harvard book launch follows:

Yes, we pretty much have. That’s the inescapable conclusion following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic First Amendment decision in Brown v. EMA back in June, which struck down a California law governing the sale of “violent video games” to minors.  By a 7-2 margin, the court held that video games have First Amendment protections on par with books, film, music and other forms of entertainment.

The folks over at ALEC asked me to explore what happens next and what steps state and local lawmakers can take in a post-Brown world if they wish to address concerns about video game content. My essay appears in the Nov/Dec Inside ALEC newsletter. You can read the entire thing here or via the Scribd embed I have placed down below the fold.

I argue that, going forward, this ruling will force state and local governments to change their approach to regulating all modern media content. Education and awareness-building efforts will be the more fruitful alternative since censorship has now been largely foreclosed.

Game Over for Video Game Censorship – Adam Thierer INSIDE ALEC [November 2011]

NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam had a great spot on NPR’s Morning Edition today about the disputes among social scientists over the impact of violent video games on kids. [“It’s A Duel: How Do Violent Video Games Affect Kids?”] You won’t be surprised to hear I wholeheartedly agree with Texas A&M psychologist Chris Ferguson, who noted in the spot:

Ferguson says it’s easy to think senseless video game violence can lead to senseless violence in the real world. But he says that’s mixing up two separate things.  “Many of the games do have morally objectionable material and I think that is where a lot of the debate on this issue went off the rails,” he said. “We kind of mistook our moral concerns about some of these video games, which are very valid — I find many of the games to be morally objectionable — and then assumed that what is morally objectionable is harmful.”

I’ve written about Ferguson’s work and these issues more generally many times over through the years here at the TLF. Here are some of the most relevant essays:

• Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis
• More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime
• Video Games, Free Speech & the Lunacy of “Ecogenerism”
• Video Games and “Moral Panic”
• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Do video games create cop killers?

In these essays, I’ve tried to make a couple of key points about the social science literature on “media effects” theory:

(1) Lab studies by psychology professors and students are not representative of real-world behavior/results. Indeed, lab experiments are little more than artificial constructions of reality and of only limited value in gauging the impact of violently-themed media on actual human behavior.

(2) Real-world data trends likely offer us a better indication of the impact of media on human behavior over the long-haul. And all those trends show encouraging signs of improvement even as video game consumption among youth and adults increases.

(3) Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Of course, whether we are talking about those artificial lab experiments or the real-world data sets, we must always keep this first principle of statistical analysis in mind.

(4) Finally, it’s worth reconsidering whether more weight should be given to the “cathartic effect hypothesis” in these debates. 

A bit more on this final point since I feel quite passionately about it…

The battle over media effect theory goes all the way back to the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. While Plato thought the media of his day (poetry, plays & music) had a deleterious impact on culture and humanity, Aristotle took a very different view. Indeed, most historians believe it was Aristotle who first used the term katharsis when discussing the importance of Greek tragedies, which often contained violent overtones and action. He suggested that these tragedies helped the audience, “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” In Part IV of his Poetics, Aristotle spoke highly of tragedies that used provocative or titillating storytelling to its fullest effect:

Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

And for me, that remains the best explanation for how humans process dramatic depictions of violence and tragedy. We humans are unique among all mammals in our ability to adapt to changes in our environment and to process new and different forms of content and culture. We process. We learn. We assimilate. We adapt. Thus, we can enjoy the “tragic wonder” of watching a violent Greek drama or playing a violent video game without running for the kitchen to find a knife to plunge into somebody’s back. We can separate fantasy from reality and we do so every day of our lives.

Yet, many social scientists today, echoing Plato, continue to search for proof that the alternative is true and that depictions of violence on the stage or screen will have a direct and quite deleterious impact on human behavior. They subscribe to the “monkey see-monkey do” theory of media effects. Again, I think that’s utterly bogus and flatly contradicted by real-world facts. After all, if there was anything to their theories, shouldn’t it have shown up sometime, somewhere in real-world data trends by now?

Still, don’t expect this debate to ever end.  Just wait till virtual reality technologies go mainstream!  Oh boy, now that will have the “monkey see-monkey do” crowd whipped into a lather.  I look forward to the debate (and to playing those VR games with my kids!)

Yesterday’s 7-2 decision in Brown v. EMA [summaries here from me + Berin Szoka] was one of those historic First Amendment rulings that tends to bring out passions in people. You either loved it or hated it. But it’s sad to see some critics on the losing end of the case declaring that only greed could have possibly motivated the Court’s decision.

For example, California Senator Leland Yee, the author of the law that the Supreme Court struck down yesterday, obviously wasn’t happy about the outcome of the case. Neither was James Steyer, CEO of the advocacy group Common Sense Media, who has been a vociferous advocate of the California law and measures like it. What they had to say in response to the decision, however, was outlandish and juvenile. In essence, they both claimed that the Supreme Court only struck down the law to make video game developers and retailers happy.

“Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” Leland Yee said in a post on his website yesterday. “As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.” Jim Steyer reached a similar conclusion: “Today’s decision is a disappointing one for parents, educators, and all who care about kids,” he said. “Today, the multi-billion dollar video game industry is celebrating the fact that their profits have been protected, but we will continue to fight for the best interests of kids and families.”

Mr. Yee and Mr. Steyer seem to be under the impression that the Court and supporters of its ruling in Brown cannot possibly care about children and that something sinister motivates our passion about the victory. Apparently we’re all just apparently in it to make video game industry fat cats and retailing giants happy! That’s a truly insulting position for Mr. Yee and Mr. Steyer to adopt. Perhaps it is just because they are sore about the outcome in the case that are adopting such rhetorical tactics. Regardless, I think they do themselves, their constituencies, and the public a great injustice by suggesting that only greed could possibly be motivating the outcome in this case.

Why is it so hard for Mr. Yee and Mr. Steyer to believe that many of us — like the majority writing for the Court in Brown — believe that video games represent valuable, constitutionally protected speech and that laws like those in California are an affront to First Amendment rights we cherish? What Mr. Yee and Mr. Steyer are asking us to believe is that all those average gamers and free speech advocates who lined up behind the video game industry and merchants who brought this case did so only out of a concern about the welfare of those companies.  Preposterous!  Anyone who knows anything about game industry politics knows that some rather serious tensions exist between gamers, game developers, and game retailers.

Incidentally, it’s particular silly for Mr. Yee to single out Wal-Mart in his comment yesterday since Wal-Mart actually goes to great lengths to keep “Mature”-rated games out of the hands of minors who might try to purchase them on their own. But I could care less about how much money Wal-Mart, any other retailer, or any video game developer makes from selling games. That’s the last thing on the mind of most First Amendment supporters when they praise this decision and it’s ridiculous that Mr. Yee and Mr. Steyer would list it as the primary motivation of the Court or supporters of the decision.

And then there’s Mr. Steyer’s comment that “today’s decision is a disappointing one for parents, educators, and all who care about kids.”  Utterly insulting tripe. Millions of parents like me “care about kids” passionately and devote most of our lives to raising them properly. I understand you want to help us do that, but you are not helping when you insult the very people you say your organization exists to support.

I have repeatedly praised Common Sense Media here and elsewhere for many of the outstanding services and information they provide to parents. My wife and I regularly consult CSM’s excellent movie and video game summaries before we let our kids consume certain titles. It was also my great privilege to serve on a blue ribbon online child safety task force that CSM created and co-sponsored.

But when Mr. Steyer veers into this sort of hysterical ‘you’re-either-for-these-laws-or-you’re-against-children’ sort of lunacy, it really makes me question whether I should frequent his organization’s website anymore or have any further interaction with this group. While I appreciate CSM’s efforts to empower parents with more and better information about the content our families consume, it is insulting in the extreme for Mr. Steyer to suggest that you can’t “care about kids” and also care about the First Amendment.

Like the majority of the justices on the Court, I support limits on how our government controls speech because we live in a nation that cherishes freedom of expression and personal responsibility.  We should not expect Uncle Sam to act as a national nanny and make subjective determinations about what is best for our families. As Catherine Ross, a professor at George Washington University Law School, noted in a nice Washington Post oped, “By rejecting this radical path, the justices [in Brown] protected our children by preserving our liberty.”

Quite right.  I’m proud the Supreme Court sided with freedom yesterday and against the sort of nannyism from above that Mr. Steyer and Mr. Yee apparently favor and equate with “caring about kids.”  These men obviously don’t take First Amendment rights quite as seriously as some of the rest of us. But shame on them for claiming that just because many of us (or the Courts) do take these rights and responsibilities seriously that it somehow means we don’t care about our children or that we only believe these things in order to make corporations happy.

The Supreme Court wasn’t playing games with the First Amendment today. With its 7-2 decision in Brown v. EMA, the Court has protected video game creators and players from unconstitutional restrictions on what we can produce and play.

Today’s decision ensures that video games have First Amendment protection on par with books, film, music and other forms of entertainment and will help block other regulatory efforts that are justified by blindly alluding to the rationale that “it’s for the children.” The decision fits nicely alongside an impressive and growing string of recent First Amendment cases from the Court that significantly raise the bar against legislative efforts to regulate freedom of speech and expression.

Quick background: In May 2010, the Supreme Court announced that it would review a California law regulating the sale of violently-themed video games to minors. The case was Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, but the name of the case changed to after Jerry Brown became governor of California.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down a California law which prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors, but California appealed and the SCOTUS took up the issue.  [Note: When we were still with the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Berin Szoka and I filed a big amicus brief with the Court in the case along with some folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.]  By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court backed the Ninth Circuit and overturned the California law. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented.

The crucial holdings in the decision are as follows:

1. Video games are protected speech deserving strict First Amendment scrutiny. The Court held: “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection.  Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium.  And ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech… do not vary’ with a new and different communication medium.”
2. Depictions of violence in video games cannot be treated as obscenity and regulated as such. The Court concluded flatly: “speech about violence is not obscene” and held that “a legislature cannot  create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social  costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.” It continues on: “the State of California wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.  That is unprecedented and mistaken.  This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access  to depictions  of violence.”
3. The social science literature on the impact of violent games is inconclusive. The Court found that: “Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act  aggressively.  Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media.”
4. Concerns about children cannot be used as an excuse for sweeping content regulation (especially when less-restrictive means exist of dealing with access to objectionable content.) Government cannot excuse censorship by pointing to fears about children’s access to violent depictions of media. The Court noted that, “California’s effort to regulate violent video games is the latest episode in a long series of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors,” but that, “even where the protection of children is the object, the  constitutional limits on governmental action apply.” Violently-themed media is as old as literature itself, the Court noted. As has been the case with previous forms of violent content, parental responsibility is the better way to regulate access to potentially objectionable media. And the Court noted that tools and ratings exist to help parents do so.

This is the proper approach for a society that cherishes free speech, freedom of expression, and personal responsiblity. The Court did a great thing here today. Honestly, I was expecting a loss and had a long essay ready to go that reflected my disappointment.  Never have I been so pleased to tear up something I had spent so much time on!

A great day for the First Amendment.

P.S. As if often the case, best line in the decision came in a footnote: “Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are  not  constitutional ones.  Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less  forms of speech than The Divine Comedy,” Justice Scalia wrote.

Additional TLF Reading on Video Games:

• Again, Most Video Games Are Not Violent
• <a title="Permanent link to Thoughts on Oral Arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Video Game Case” href=”../2010/11/04/thoughts-on-oral-arguments-in-schwarzenegger-v-ema-video-game-case/”>Thoughts on Oral Arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Video Game Case
• <a title="Permanent link to EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case” href=”../2010/09/18/eff-pff-amicus-brief-in-schwarzenegger-v-ema-supreme-court-videogame-violence-case/”>EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
• If We Ban Violent Video Games, Why Not Violent Theme Park Attractions?
• Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis
• More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime
• Will the Supreme Court Protect Kitten-Crushing Videos & Virtual Kid Porn but Not Video Games?
• Video Games, Free Speech & the Lunacy of “Ecogenerism”
• Like the Terminator, Video Game Censorship Efforts Just Won’t Die
• Video Games and “Moral Panic”
• Kids, Video Games, Fantasy, & Imagination
• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Dear Gov. Patterson… Regarding that Video Game Bill You Are About to Sign
• Do video games create cop killers?
• review: Dr. Kourosh Dini’s “Video Game Play & Addiction”
• review: Kutner & Olson’s “Grand Theft Childhood”
• presentation at PSU’s conference on future of video games
• Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?
• First Amendment & Video Games [Updated] Score: Gamers 11, Censors 0
• Sen. Rockefeller Gives Up on Parenting at Senate Violence Hearing
• Can Government Improve Video Game Ratings?
• An Indecency Regime for Video Games?
• Let’s Consider the Facts Before We Call In Government to Regulate Video Games

Five years ago this month, I penned a white paper on “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation” that I have been meaning to update ever since but just never seem to get around to it. One of the myths I aimed to debunk in the paper was the belief that most video games contain intense depictions of violence or sexuality.  This argument drives many of the crusades to regulate video games. In my old study, I aggregated several years worth of data about video game ratings and showed that the exact opposite was the case: the majority of games sold each year were rating “E” for everyone or “E10+” (Everyone 10 and over) by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB).

Thanks to this new article by Ars Technica‘s Ben Kuchera, we know that this trend continues. Kuchera reports that out of 1,638 games rated by the ESRB in 2010, only 5% were rated “M” for Mature. As a percentage of top sellers, the percentage of “M”-rated games is a bit higher, coming in at 29%. But that’s hardly surprising since there are always a few big “M”-rated titles that are the power-sellers among young adults each year.  Still, most of the best sellers don’t contain extreme violence or sexuality.

The primary criticism of these findings is that (1) violence is subjective and, therefore, (2) you can’t trust the industry to accurately rate it’s own content. Plus, (3) kids still see a lot of violent content, anyway.

Violence certain is subjective, as I’ve discussed here numerous times before. And it’s also true that the ESRB was created by the video game industry as a self-regulatory body to rate the content of games. That doesn’t mean the ratings are deceptive, however. Indeed, polls have generally shown parental satisfaction with the system, and when you compare ESRB ratings to independent rating schemes (like Common Sense Media’s) you see largely the same sort of labels and age warnings being affixed to various titles.  Sure, there are small differences at the margin, but they tend to be legitimately difficult cases (ex: how to rate a boxing game when the real-world equivalent is an actual sporting event that can be quite violent at times).

I’m never quite sure what to make of the third argument: that kids will still see a lot of violent games. If that’s true, is it the video game industry’s fault? Should no violent games be released because some kids might still find a way to see or play them? That’s an intolerable solution in a free society that treasures the First Amendment, of course.  Moreover, it really comes back to parental choice and responsibility.  When games cost $20 to $60 bucks a pop, it’s hard to even figure out how junior gets his hands on some of these games without Mom or Dad knowing. Moreover, even getting the game console into the house requires a significant outlay of cash, and even then, parents are prompted to set up parental controls when they get some of these devices. (All of them contain sophisticated controls but the initial configuration is slightly different on each).

In my opinion, the combination of the excellent ESRB ratings and the outstanding current generation console controls has resulted in one of the great user-empowerment success stories of modern times.  Parents have been given valuable information about games to make decisions regarding what is appropriate for their families and then also given the tools to take action on that information by establishing console settings in line with their household values. Sounds like an ideal state of affairs to me. And, better yet, as the data above illustrate, parents don’t even have to worry about most games being inappropriate for kids!

Now, excuse me while I get back to playing “Plants vs. Zombies” on the XBox with my kids!  What a great game that is. The whole family is loving it.

I’m still digesting the transcript from Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the important First Amendment video game case, Schwarzenegger v. EMA. [Full transcript is here.]  I thought I would post just a couple of quick thoughts here. [Reminder: here is the amicus brief that Berin Szoka and I filed in the case, and here is some analysis of the case by Larry Downes.]

On Defining “Deviant Violence”

Much of the discussion during oral arguments was preoccupied with defining the contours of the term “deviant violence.”  I was pleased to see the Justices asking some sharp questions about the interpretation of that term for regulatory purposes. In particular, I enjoyed Justice Scalia’s remarks and questions to California Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, who argued the case on behalf of the state. Scalia said:

I am not just concerned with the vagueness. I am concerned with the vagueness, but I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. You are asking us to create…  a whole new prohibition which the American people never — never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment.  They knew they were — you know, obscenity was — was bad, but — what’s next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Movies that show smoking can’t be shown to children? Does — will that affect them? Of course, I suppose it will.  But is — is that — are — are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why — why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay? (p. 15-16)

Indeed, that’s what is at stake in this case: The beginning of a new class of exceptions to the First Amendment based upon concerns about children’s exposure to depictions of “excessive” or “deviant” violence.”  Once you open up this can of worms, the sky is likely the limit in terms of how far governments might go to regulate speech in the name of “protecting children.”

If a majority of the Justices choose to side with the State of California and open the floodgates to a new era of speech regulation, I very much looking forward to seeing how they reconcile that with their decision last term in the controversial case of United States v. Stevens. In Stevens, the Court struck down a federal law that criminalized the creation or sale of videos showing animal cruelty. The law that the Court overturned was particularly concerned with “crush videos,” which, according to the Court, “feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish.” As I pointed out in this earlier essay, it would seem rather peculiar that the Court would allow the dissemination of videos of real kittens having their heads crushed by naked women in high heels, which kids might be able to see on the Internet, but then hold here in the Schwarzenegger case that allowing a minor to buy an M-rated video game with depictions of violence is verboten.  Hard to find the logic in that!

But the Court is going to have an even harder time reconciling regulation of depictions of violence with obscenity law and then delineating the boundaries of what governments can and cannot censor or control the sale of.  At least with obscenity, we have one bright-line test: Is sexual penetration shown?  Of course, things get pretty pretty murky after that.  Regardless, what is the equivalent test for violence in video games, movies, or television? Is it decapitation or exploding heads?  What if it’s a zombie head?  What if it’s just a ear that gets blown off a zombie’s head? What if you beat the zombie over the head with a baseball bat to kill him but his head never comes off? Or, as Justice Sotomayor asked, “what happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle. Is that covered by your act? Because they haven’t been maimed and killed forever. Just temporarily.” (p. 58)

You get the point: A lot of line-drawing is going to need to be done if the Court goes down this path.

On Juries & “Community Standards”

So, let’s drill a little deeper into the line-drawing issue and the enforcement of such regulatory ordinances. During oral arguments, there was an interesting exchange regarding how the State of California, or any other local government, might go about enforcing more speech-limiting ordinances on this front. Justice Ginsburg asked Assistant AG  Morazzini: “does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there — is there any kind of opinion that the — that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can’t?”  A terrific question and one followed up by Justice Scalia, who joked (I think): “You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship. It would judge each of these videos one by one.”

In response, Mr. Morazzini defaulted to the old obscenity playbook and argued that:

California’s not doing that here. The standard is quite similar to that in the sexual material realm. California is not acting as a censor. It is telling manufacturers and distributors to look at your material and to judge for yourselves whether or not the level of violent content meets the prongs of this definition. (p. 24)

Thus, Mr. Morazzini wants to dismiss the entire inquiry with the retort: “we ask juries to judge sexual material and its appropriateness for minors as well.”  But that doesn’t necessarily make such regulation any less offensive in the eyes of the First Amendment.  If the state empowers juries to censor, well, it’s still censorship. It’s just censorship with a slightly more democratic face!

Of course, in the field of First Amendment jurisprudence, this is all filed under the banner of “community standards” regulation. As Mr. Morazzini suggests, these is, indeed, a history of it in this country when it comes to obscenity law, although its increasingly rare.  Regardless, I have argued that the time has come to think differently about the appropriateness of “community standards” regulation.  Here’s how I put it in some remarks I made at the Oxford University Internet Institute last year:

It is my hope and belief that we are now in a position to more fully empower parents such that government regulation of content and communications will be increasingly unnecessary. In the past, it was thought to be too difficult for families to enforce their own “household standard” for acceptable content. Thus, many believed government needed to step in and create a baseline “community standard” for the entire citizenry.  Unfortunately, those “community standards” were quite amorphous and sometimes completely arbitrary when enforced through regulatory edicts.  Worse yet, those regulatory standards treated all households as if they had the same tastes or values—which is clearly not the case in most pluralistic societies. If it is the case that families now have the ability to effectively tailor media consumption and communications choices to their own preferences—that is, to craft their own “household standard”—then the regulatory equation can and should change.  Regulation can no longer be premised on the supposed helplessness of households to deal with content flows if families have been empowered and educated to make content determinations for themselves.  Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. Going forward, our goal should be to ensure that parents or guardians have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Optimally, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families. In my work, I refer to this as the “household empowerment vision.”

What we have with the Schwarzenegger case is the perfect test case for which direction the Court wants to take us.  Will the Court hold on to the past and the old vision of “community standards” regulation that the State of California wants to extend?  Or will the Court recognize that that standard was really a second-best surrogate for more direct parental and household-based standards of control?  The latter position is the one more consistent with a free, diverse society.  As I argued in my old book on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection:

Decisions about acceptable media content are extraordinarily personal; no two people or families will have the same set of values, especially in a nation as diverse as ours. Consequently, it would be optimal if public policy decisions in this field took into account the extraordinary diversity of citizen and household tastes and left the ultimate decision about acceptable content to them. That’s especially the case in light of the fact that most U.S. households are made up entirely of adults.

The ideal state of affairs, therefore, would be a nation of fully empowered parents who have the ability to perfectly tailor their family’s media consumption habits to their specific values and preferences. Specifically, parents or guardians would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block  objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

On The Role of Parental Controls in First Amendment Jurisprudence

Finally, let’s talk about those parental controls for a moment and the role they play in debates over First Amendment jurisprudence.  At one point during the oral arguments on Tuesday, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted video game industry lawyer Paul M. Smith of Jenner & Block to say that, “any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about 5 minutes.”  In response, Mr. Smith correctly noted that “That is one element of about five different elements” and cited a couple of other things such as the information conveyed by the video game’s excellent ratings system, as well as household-level controls / restrictions and the “power of the purse” that parents can exercise when junior asks for $50-$60 bucks to buy one of these games.

What Mr. Smith was getting at here is that today we have access to what I have called “a mosaic of parental control tools and methods” and what is really essential for First Amendment jurisprudence is that the Court not pin everything on just one of those tool or method.  Yes, some kids can evade parental controls, ignore household rules, steal money from Mom or Dad’s wallet to buy a game, etc.  But the combination of these many layers of control constitute what the court has repeatedly called “the less restrictive means” of dealing with these concerns compared to the sweeping nature of government content controls.

Importantly, we should recall what the Supreme Court said about the less restrictive means test in its 2000 decision in U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000), which echoed its earlier holding in Reno v. ACLU.  Specifically, in the Playboy case, the Court held that:

[T]argeted blocking [by parents] enables the government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners — listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests.

Moreover, the Court held that:

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.

This is an extraordinarily high bar the Supreme Court has set for policymakers wishing to regulate modern media content.  As constitutional law scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago School of Law has noted:

The bottom line, then, is that even in dealing with material that is “obscene for minors,” the government cannot directly regulate such material… Rather, it must focus on empowering parents and other adults to block out such material at their own discretion, by ensuring that content-neutral means exist that enable individuals to exclude constitutionally protected material they themselves want to exclude. Any more direct regulation of such material would unnecessarily impair the First Amendment rights of adults.

This is why parental control tools and methods are more important than ever before. The courts have largely foreclosed government censorship and placed responsibility over what enters the home squarely in the hands of parents.  But will the Supreme Court reverse this jurisprudential trend with its decision in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA decision?  I hope not.  If they do, it will undo about 15 years of really excellent case law on this front.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

Yesterday, the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)  filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to protect the free speech rights of videogame creators and users and asking the justices to uphold a ruling throwing out unconstitutional restrictions on violent videogames.  At issue is a California law that bans the sale or rental of “violent” videogames to anyone under the age of 18, among other regulations. While the law was passed in 2005, it has never taken effect, as courts have repeatedly ruled it unconstitutional. California appealed its loss at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.  The case is Schwarzenegger vs. EMA.

This case has profound ramifications for the future of not just videogames, but all media, and the Internet as well. Although we’ve had 15 years of fairly solid Supreme Court case law on new media issues, a loss in the Schwarzenegger case could reverse that tide.  In the amicus brief, we explain how the current videogame content rating system empowers parents to make their own decisions without unconstitutionally restricting this new and evolving form of free speech.  Our brief is focused on three major arguments:

1. Parental Control Tools, Household Media Control Methods, Self-Regulation and Enforcement of Existing Laws Constitute Less Restrictive Means of Limiting Access to Objectionable Content than Government Regulation of Constitutionally Protected Speech
2. Videogame Content is Constitutionally Protected Speech Deserving Strict Scrutiny
3. The State Has Not Established a Compelling Government Interest in Restricting the Sale of Videogames to Minors

The filing can be found online here and it is embedded down below.  As always, the Media Coalition has done an outstanding job summarizing the case and listing all the major briefs filed with the Court in this matter, so check out their Schwarzenegger v. EMA page for everything you need to know about this case.  GamePolitics.com also offers excellent ongoing coverage of the case. In particular, check out briefs by:

• The Entertainment Software Association reply brief
• The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund by First Amendment legal wit Bob Corn-Revere
• The Center for Democracy & Technology, among others, focusing on the dangers of expanded age verification for the Internet, which PFF, CDT and EFF recently filed on in the FTC’s COPPA review proceeding.
• this brief by various First Amendment scholars led by Eugene Volokh
• the Media Coalition & several other groups

EFF – PFF Supreme Court Amicus Brief in SCHWARZENEGGER v EMA Video Game Case http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

The Entertainment Software Association, which represents the video game industry, has just released its latest “Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry” publication.  It’s a handy annual resource that I always look forward to reading. There are many interesting facts and figures found in the report, but here a few worth calling out from the data they have aggregated:

• 93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented
• 64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives
• 86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game
• 48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly
• 97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play
• 76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful

The survey also bolsters the findings of many other polls and reports which have found that parents employ a variety of what I have labeled “household media rules” to monitor or control their children’s media consumption:

• 83% of parents place time limits on video game playing
• 78% of parents place time limits on television viewing
• 75% of parents place time limits on Internet usage
• 66% of parents place time limits on movie viewing

Once again, these findings illustrate that parents are parenting!  Parents are playing an active role in the lives of their children, monitoring their media use, and mentoring them with the assistance of the ratings and parental control technologies / methods at their disposal.

I sure hope the Supreme Court is listening as they prepare to take up the constitutionality of laws regulating video game sales.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times penned an interesting essay a few days ago entitled, “Do Video Games Equal Less Crime?” reflecting upon the same FBI crime data I wrote about earlier this week, which showed rapid drops in violent crime last year (on top of years of steady declines).  Crimes of all sorts plummeted last year despite the serious economic recession we find ourselves in.  Downturns in the economy are typically followed by upticks in crime. Not so this time.  Which leads Leonhardt to wonder if perhaps exposure to violent media (especially violent video games) could have played a positive role in tempering criminal activity in some fashion:

Video games can not only provide hours of entertainment. They can also give people — especially young men, who play more than their fair share of video games and commit more than their fair share of crimes — an outlet for frustration that doesn’t involve actual violence. Video games obviously have many unfortunate side effects. They can promote obsessive, antisocial behavior and can make violent situations seem ordinary. But might video games also have an upside? I’m willing to consider the idea.

Go Back to the Greeks

What Leonhardt is suggesting here goes by the name “cathartic effect hypothesis” and debates have raged over it for centuries.  Seriously, the fight goes all the way back to the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. And, as with everything else, Aristotle had it right! Well, at least in my opinion he did, but I am a rabid Aristotealian.  While Plato thought the media of his day (poetry, plays & music) had a deleterious impact on culture and humanity, Aristotle took a very different view. Indeed, most historians believe it was Aristotle who first used the term katharsis when discussing the importance of Greek tragedies, which often contained violent overtones and action. He suggested that these tragedies helped the audience, “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See Part IV of Aristotle’s Poetics,) Aristotle spoke highly of tragedies that used provocative or titillating storytelling to its fullest effect:

Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

Of “Tragic Wonder” & Balanced Passions

Again, what Aristotle believed was important about such tales was precisely that they help give rise to a heightened sense of “tragic wonder” that helped us purge away or balance out similar passions brewing in the human psyche. [For a broader discussion of the catharsis debate from Plato and Aristotle on down to the modern “media effects” psychologists and social scientists, see Marjorie Heins’s brilliant 2001 book, Not in Front of the Children: ‘Indecency,’ Censorship and the Innocence of Youth, p. 228-253.]

One might just as easily apply this thinking to many of the most popular video games children play today, including those with violent overtones. That’s exactly what Gerald Jones does in his book Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence:

One of the functions of stories and games is to help children rehearse for what they’ll be in later life. Anthropologists and psychologists who study play, however, have shown that there are many other functions as well—one of which is to enable children to pretend to be just what they know they’ll never be. Exploring, in a safe and controlled context, what is impossible or too dangerous or forbidden to them is a crucial tool in accepting the limits of reality. Playing with rage is a valuable way to reduce its power. Being evil and destructive in imagination is a vital compensation for the wildness we all have to surrender on our way to being good people.

Judge Richard Posner used similar logic when penning the 7th Circuit’s 2001 decision in American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, which struck down an Indianapolis ordinance prohibiting anyone who operated more than five arcade games on their premises from allowing an unaccompanied minor to play games that would be considered “harmful to minors.” In the Kendrick decision, Posner noted that “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”

Don’t Be the Boy in the (Intellectual) Bubble

Posner’s opinion for the court was a blistering tour-de-force that included a review of violence in literature throughout history. “Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the ‘undead,’ fighting against overwhelming odds—these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young,” he noted. “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it,” he argued. “People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.” This is a different sort of construction of cathartic effect hypothesis. In essence, Posner is explaining how exposure to violently-themed media helps to gradually assimilate us into the realities of the world around us.

Such thinking will undoubtedly remain controversial—perhaps even outlandish—to some. But the history of art and entertainment has always been filled with its share of controversies in terms of its impact on culture and society. Indeed, one generation’s trash often becomes a subsequent generation’s treasure. Sculptures, paintings and works of literature widely condemned in one period were often praised—even consider mainstream—in the next.  As The Economist magazine editorialized in the summer of 2005: “Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19^th century; all that was thought to be ‘intoxicating’ and ‘depraved’, and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and Satanism; but today even grannies listen buy Coldplay albums.” I’ve written more about such “moral panics” here in the past.

Humans Adapt

Here is the important point: somehow we get through it. We learn to assimilate culture into our lives that previous generations feared or loathed. As the late University of North Carolina journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once noted: “[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.” And Thomas Hine, author of The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, argues that: “We seem to have moved, without skipping a beat, from blaming our parents for the ills of society to blaming our children. We want them to embody virtues we only rarely practice. We want them to eschew habits we’ve never managed to break.”

If you subscribe to the cathartic effect school of thinking, however, you typically do no fear social or technological change as much because you realize that human adapt. We learn to cope with cultural or technological changes, and in many cases we are actually made better off as a species because of those changes.

Can It Be Proven One Way or the Other?

But is there any hard evidence to prove or disprove the cathartic effect hypothesis? The problem is, as I have noted here before repeatedly, we must never forget the first iron law of statistical analysis: Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Whether we are talking about those artificial lab experiments or the real-world data sets, we cannot lose sight of the fact that just because B follows A it does not mean A caused B. That is particularly the case when it comes to human behavior, which is complex and ever-changing.

That being said, I’ve also suggested that, at some point, a consistent trend in real-world crime data must suggest that at least the opposite is not the case. Thus, when it comes to the supposed relationship between violent media and real-world violence, I have to believe that if there was anything to the thesis that a correlation exists, we would have to see it manifest itself at some point in crime statistics. But we have now experienced roughly 15 years of steady drops in all categories of criminal activity, especially juvenile violence, while at the same time witnessing a fairly steady increase in exposure to video games and violently-theme media in general.

Incidentally, Leonhardt’s New York Times article cites a recent study by Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna that appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in May 2009 entitled, “Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?” which tried to use some hard data to evaluate the cathartic effect hypothesis. Dahl and DellaVigna found that:

exposure to violent movies has three main effects on violent crime: (i) it significantly reduces violent crime in the evening on the day of exposure; (ii) by an even larger percent, it reduces violent crime during the night hours following exposure; (iii) it has no significant impact in the days and weeks following the exposure. We interpret the first finding as voluntary incapacitation: potential criminals that choose to attend the movie theater forego other activities that have higher crime rates. As simple as this finding is, it has been neglected in the literature, despite its quantitative importance. We interpret the second finding as substitution away from a night of more volatile activities, in particular, a reduction in alcohol consumption. The third finding implies that the same-day impact on crime is not offset by intertemporal substitution of crime. An important component of these interpretations is the sorting of more violent individuals into violent movie attendance. These findings appear to contradict evidence from laboratory experiments that document an increase in violent  behavior following exposure to movie violence.

Of course, it’s just one study, so I’m not ready to rest my entire case upon it (or even dozens of other studies like it).  But I do think they’re on to something.

The Supreme Court recently announced that it will review a California law regulating the sale of violently-themed video games to minors. The case under review is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. In it, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law which prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors. I’m inclined to agree with Julie Hilden when she notes that “it seems very unlikely that the Supreme Court took this case in order to proclaim, as the Ninth Circuit panel did, that minors do indeed have First Amendment rights — rights that extend far enough to reach ‘violent’ video games.”  I hope that we’re both wrong and that the Court took the case to instead affirm the free speech rights of game creators and users (and yes, even minors), but the justices could have just left the Ninth Circuit ruling be and that would have been settled.

Anyway, let’s think this through here. What if the Supremes took the Schwarzenegger case to overturn the Ninth Circuit and to uphold the right of state governments to regulate the sale of “violent” video game content, however that’s defined. Let’s consider such a potential holding in light of two other free speech cases handed down over the past few years.

In the 2002 case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which had attempted to criminalize computer-generated depictions of child porn.  And just a few weeks ago, in United States v. Stevens, the Court struck down a federal law that criminalized the creation or sale of videos showing animal cruelty. The law that the Court overturned was particularly concerned with “crush videos,” which, according to the Court, “feature the torture and killing of helpless animals and are said to appeal to persons with a specific sexual fetish.”

Thus, if one assumes that the Supreme Court took the Schwarzenegger case to reverse in favor of state regulators, the justices on our highest court would essentially be saying that it’s just fine and dandy to create virtual depictions of children being raped or videos of real kittens having their heads crushed by naked women in high heels, but we’ll be damned if we let a kid buy a copy of Halo 3 !

Does that make any sense? I sure can’t find the logic in it, but perhaps someone can enlighten me.  Because, honestly, even though I am as about as hard-core of a First Amendment defender as you will find, those two other cases still make me a bit queasy and really put my free speech fanaticism to the test.  By contrast, I have a very hard time believing that junior is going to be mentally damaged for life by playing a few more levels on Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, or X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  Indeed, I can easily imagine a day when I would let my kids (when they are older teens) take their own money and buy one of those games themselves.  But I could never imagine a day I’d want them seeing virtual kiddie porn or kitten-crushing videos.

The Supreme Court announced today that it will review a California law regulating the sale of violently-themed video games to minors. The case is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants and I have written about it here before. This will be the first major First Amendment case regarding video game speech rights heard by our nation’s highest court. This afternoon, I issued the following press statement about the case and its importance:

“I hope the Supreme Court is taking this case to affirm the free speech rights of game creators and users, and not to overturn ten years of solid, sensible lower court decisions granting video games the same First Amendment protections as books, film, music and other forms of entertainment. Government regulation of game content is unnecessary because parents have been empowered with sophisticated video game parental controls and a highly descriptive ratings system that is widely recognized and easy to use. Lawmakers should focus their efforts on making sure parents are better aware of existing tools and ratings instead of trying to censor game content in such a plainly unconstitutional fashion. Let’s hope the Supreme Court affirms that educational approach and Ninth Circuit’s decision at the same time.”

Several reporters have already asked me if its a bad sign that the Court took the case at all and wondered if this meant that there are 5 votes for overturning the lower court decision.  It’s impossible to read the tea leaves on things like this, but I would generally agree that it’s not a good sign.  But I just don’t understand how the Supreme Court could uphold a law like this in light of all their recent Internet jurisprudence (CDA, COPA, etc) which held against the government when various “harm to minors” statutes were tested and found to be unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court goes the opposite direction here, it will mean that our “First Amendment jurisprudential Twilight Zone” will become even more confusing and contorted. Let’s hope that’s not the case.

The website ProCon.org has a new debate online laying out the different perspectives about the question: “Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?” It includes citations for a wide variety of studies that come down on both sides of the question. Simply put, there’s a study for everyone out there. Do you want to find a study suggesting that there’s a strong correlation between violently-themed media and aggression? You can find plenty. Or do you want to hear that there’s no correlation between these things? Well, there’s plenty of studies suggesting that, too.

As someone who briefly flirted with a degree in psychology, I find this an interesting intellectual debate. But here’s the thing I can’t get away from — lab studies by psychology professors and students are not the real-world. I am consistently shocked and disappointed at the lack of scrutiny these studies receive when they are little more than artificial constructions of reality.

So, how can we determine whether watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs? Well, how about looking at the real world! Whatever lab experiments might suggest, the evidence of a link between depictions of violence in media and the real-world equivalent just does not show up in the data. The FBI produces ongoing Crime in the United States reports that document violent crimes trends. Here’s what the data tells us about overall violent crime, forcible rape, and juvenile violent crime rates over the past two decades: They have all fallen. Perhaps most impressively, the juvenile crime rate has fallen an astonishing 36% since 1995 (and the juvenile murder rate has plummeted by 62%).

Now, let me be perfectly clear about something. When analyzing such things it is vitally important to recall one of the first rules of statistical analysis: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This works in both directions. Even if an increase in real-world violence was closely tracking depictions of violence on television or in video games, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there is a connection. But it would also be wrong to state that, on its own, an inverse correlation (with the trends moving in opposite directions) meant that there was absolutely no connection between these things.

At the margin, I believe that some media can have negative impacts on some people. Certainly, in heavy enough doses, watching non-stop depictions of sex or violence probably would have some sort of negative effect on some people — loss of sleep, if nothing else. Perhaps more.

Then again, it is impossible to ignore the real-world evidence being so starkly at odds with the “monkey see, monkey do” theories bandied about by some researchers or regulatory proponents. At a minimum, the real-world evidence should at least call into question the “world-is-going-to-hell” sort of generalizations made by proponents of increased media regulation, who all too often make casual inferences about the relationship between media exposure and various social indicators. Such a causal relationship is even more dubious today since all Americans, especially youngsters, are surrounded by a much wider variety of media than ever before. Even though television viewing has gone down slightly in recent years, it has been due to the rise of other media substitutes that command the attention of children, including the Internet, cell phones and video games. Overall, therefore, it appears that children are “consuming” as much, if not more, media than ever before. One would think that if depictions of violence in media really were leading to increased aggression among youth it would start showing up in some of these indicators at some point. But that’s just not occurring. [If you’re interested, I’ve discussed all these issues at much greater detail here, here, here, here, and here.]

Another argument I often hear is: ‘Well, the numbers would be even better if not for media violence!’ But there’s just no way to prove that one way or the other. Would the juvenile crime rate be down 46% instead of the 36% decrease we’ve actually since 1995? I don’t know. Nobody can know. But I certainly hope that media critics and regulatory proponents aren’t so foolish as to suggest that the crime rate would drop to zero if we just forced everybody to watch “Mary Poppins” all day long.

Finally, let’s keep in mind that, whatever the evidence suggests, there are many other ways society can deal with objectionable media content without resorting to government censorship. There are plenty of excellent parental control tools and methods out there today which give individuals and families, all of which have different needs and values, the ability to craft their own “household media standard.” There are also ways to put pressure on media providers, distributors, and advertisers to self-regulate content, or better control when and where it appears.  And educational and media literacy strategies can help assimilate youth into a media-saturated culture. To me, that’s the best approach. If you accept the fact that media — including violently-themed media — has always been with us and is never going away, then you understand the importance of talking to kids about these things in an open, understanding, and loving fashion. We should be doing this in schools, at home, and throughout society.

In the meantime, don’t buy into the hype about artificial lab studies, regardless of what they say. The kids are alright.

Additional Reading:

• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Does TV Cause Violence Against Women? PTC’s “Women in Peril” Report
• Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?
• Are All Video Games Violent?
• Do video games create cop killers?
• Let’s Consider the Facts Before We Call In Government to Regulate Video Games
• review: Kutner & Olson’s “Grand Theft Childhood”
• review: Dr. Kourosh Dini’s “Video Game Play & Addiction”
• Jenkins on new Pew report about “Teens, Video Games, and Civics”

The Parents Television Council (PTC) released a new report today entitled Women in Peril: A Look at TV’s Disturbing New Storyline Trend. The report argues that “by depicting violence against women with increasing frequency, or as a trivial, even humorous matter, the broadcast networks may ultimately be contributing to a desensitized atmosphere in which people view aggression and violence directed at women as normative, even acceptable,” said PTC President Tim Winter.  As evidence the report cites… Nicole Kidman.  OK, it cites more than Nicole Kidman, but the 7-page report and accompanying press release does seem to place a lot of stock in the fact that, while being questioning by a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing about violence against women overseas, “Ms. Kidman conceded that Hollywood has probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects, according to the Associated Press.”  I’m not sure what Ms. Kidman was doing testifying before Congress on the matter of violence against women overseas — dare I suggest some congressmen were out for another photo-op with a Hollywood celeb? — but the better question is whether Ms. Kidman’s opinion has any bearing on the question of what relationship, if any, there is between televised violence and real-world violence against women. (Incidentally, if she really feels passionately about all this, is she prepared to go back and recut some of her old scenes in “Dead Calm,” “To Die For,” and “Eyes Wide Shut“?)

But let’s not nitpick about the credentials Ms. Kidman brings to the table or whether it makes any sense for PTC to elevate her opinions to proof of theory when it comes to a supposed connection between depictions of violence against women in film or television and real world acts of violence against women. PTC, however, suggests that’s exactly what is going on today. They allude to a few lab studies which are of the “monkey see, monkey do” variety — where the results of artificial lab experiments are used to claim that watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs.

There’s just one problem with such studies, and the PTC report:  Reality.  Whatever lab experiments might suggest, the evidence of a link between televised media violence and the real-world equivalent just does not show up in the data. The FBI produces ongoing Crime in the United States reports that document violent crimes trends. Here’s what the data tells us about overall violent crime, forcible rape, and juvenile violent crime rates over the past two decades: They have all fallen.  Perhaps most impressively, the juvenile crime rate has fallen an astonishing 36% since 1995.

Now, let me be perfectly clear about something.  When analyzing such things it is vitally important to recall one of the first rules of statistical analysis: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This works in both directions. Even if an increase in real-world violence was closely tracking depictions of violence on television or in video games, it wouldn’t necessarily mean there is a connection. But it would also be wrong to state that, on its own, an inverse correlation (with the trends moving in opposite directions) meant that there was absolutely no connection between these things.

At the margin, I believe that some media can have negative impacts on some people. Certainly, in heavy enough doses, watching non-stop depictions of sex or violence probably would have some sort of negative effect on some people — loss of sleep, if nothing else. Perhaps more.

Then again, I just cannot entirely dismiss the real-world evidence being so starkly at odds with the “monkey see, monkey do” theories bandied about by PTC and some researchers or regulatory proponents. At a minimum, the real-world evidence should at least call into question the “world-is-going-to-hell” sort of generalizations made by proponents of increased media regulation, who all too often make casual inferences about the relationship between media exposure and various social indicators. Such a causal relationship is even more dubious today since all Americans, especially youngsters, are surrounded by a much wider variety of media than ever before. Even though television viewing has gone down slightly in recent years, it has been due to the rise of other media substitutes that command the attention of children, including the Internet, cell phones and video games. Overall, therefore, it appears that children are “consuming” as much, if not more, media than ever before. One would think that if depictions of violence in media really were leading to increased aggression among youth it would start showing up in some of these indicators at some point. But that’s just not occurring. [If you’re interested, I’ve discussed all these issues at much greater detail here, here, here, and here.]

Another argument I often here is: ‘Well, the numbers would be even better if not for media violence!’  But there’s just no way to prove that one way or the other. Would the juvenile crime rate be down 46% instead of the 36% decrease we’ve actually since 1995?  I don’t know. Nobody can know. But I certainly hope that media critics and regulatory proponents aren’t so foolish as to suggest that the crime rate would drop to zero if we just forced everybody to watch “Mary Poppins” all day long.

Finally, let’s assume that the PTC is right and that depictions of violence against women are on the rise on TV. I can actually accept that statement. With all the forensic science shows and crime dramas on TV today, it’s clear that some of the plot lines are going to involve people dying in some fashion and many of those people will be women. And yes, some of the depictions will get pretty gritty. “Fringe” and the various “CSI” shows are clearly showing things we didn’t see on “Quincy” back in the day. (Bring back Jack Klugman! He was awesome.)

But, hey, culture has changed.  Envelopes have been pushed a bit.  A little less is left to the imagination.  But most of us can live with that fact.  Indeed, many of us actually enjoy that fact!  And for those who do not share that worldview or who have heightened sensitivities about depictions of violence in TV shows, movies, or games, I would like to tell them that I really do understand and appreciate where they are coming from.

Yet, there are many other ways you can deal with that without forcing us all to forgo content we might enjoy consuming. And, you guessed it, this is where I remind the world for the umpteenth time that I have written a whole book about parental control tools and methods! [The shameless self-promotion never ends here, folks!]  In fact, part of the reason I have invested so much time in that project — and my ongoing efforts to get companies and other third parties to expand the range of tools, ratings, and other information that we have access to — is because I genuinely want to make sure that those individuals and families who have different needs and values than I have the ability to craft their own “household media standard.”   I want each family to be empowered to make media content decisions for themselves such that they can find the media content they want and discard all the rest. Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.

I know that some critics including the PTC feel that the tools aren’t good enough, but I just don’t buy it. Sure, there’s always some room for improvement regarding parental control tools and rating systems, but the existing panoply of tools and methods offer families unprecedented control over their media consumption habits. And that includes tools and methods which enable them to find enriching and educational content, which we have more of than ever before.

I understand PTC doesn’t share my worldview on these matters.  But the difference between us is that they want to take something away from me (the right to watch certain types of content) while I want to give something to them (the ability to block that which they find distasteful).  To be fair, however, their report did not rush to the regulatory solution, even though they did call for more hearings and they warn that:

if the television industry is unwilling or unable to take serious steps to reduce or tone down such graphic images, then we will urge the Congress and the FCC, by virtue of their regulatory authority over the public airwaves, to step in and take action.

The problem is, I don’t think PTC will ever rest until all this content is removed from the airwaves altogether, even if millions of Americans actually enjoy that programming.  Again, the better solution is for PTC to work with others to improve the tools and methods available to families to more effectively make this decision for themselves.  I certainly don’t want others making these determinations for my wife and me and our two kids.  We’ve got the job handled, thank you very much.

I’ve been meaning to say something about this new paper by Renee Newman Knake of Michigan State University College of Law, which calls for a new paradigm to analyze, and then likely regulate, video game content. Knake’s paper is entitled, “From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to Negative Effects of Mass Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Game Regulations.” In it, she proposes to extend an emerging legal philosophy known as “ecogenerism” to the field of video games and the First Amendment treatment thereof. “Ecogenerism” is largely the creation of Barbara Bennett Woodhouse and the theory argues that we should apply lessons or legal frameworks from the field of environmental law to the area of media and children. “Under an ecogenerist model,” states Knake, “media harm decisions should prioritize concern about the level of ‘toxic’ media which children are exposed over free speech interests.”  Simply stated, we should treat “toxic media” like toxic chemicals.

There have been other efforts to get courts to relax the legal scrutiny applied to video game content from “strict” to something more relaxed or intermediate in character. For example, there is the “violence as obscenity” approach proposed by Kevin Saunders, who, like Knake, is also with the Michigan State University College of Law. But whereas Saunders has proposed applying an adjacent legal theory or framework (obscenity law) to legal analysis of the constitutionality of regulation of video game content, Woodhouse and now Knake propose a much broader, and more radical, reformulation of First Amendment law along the lines of entirely different body of jurisprudence — again, environment law and regulation.

Of course, this is nuts. The notion that words or images are as “toxic” as chemicals is preposterous, and yet that is exactly what Knake and Woodhouse want us to accept. We can determine with a great deal of certainly the physiological impact of too much mercury or lead on the development of the human brain or body. Generally speaking, we know what dose would kill or deform. The same cannot possibly be said of media, and the very allusion to toxic materials or chemicals is ludicrous to begin with since words and images have never directly killed anyone. EVER!

Another problem with the analogy: Video game content, like many other forms of content, can also have profound societal value even when it is of a sexual or violent nature.  Even heavy “doses” of such media can be entirely acceptable (even beneficial) for some even if they are not for others. The same would not be said of toxic chemicals. Too much of a dose would be lethal to all.  In his latest “Law of the Game on Joystiq” column, Mark Methenitis does a nice job picking apart this paper in more detail and he really nails what’s wrong with this analogy between games and harmful chemicals, dangerous diseases, or potential deadly weapons:

A video game is not meningitis or AIDS, where occasional, isolated, or incidental exposure can lead to serious injury or death. Nor is a video game anything like a handgun, where exposure can lead to someone being seriously wounded, maimed or killed. Spending an hour with Halo or Borderlands at a friend’s house isn’t even in the same galaxy of potential harm as a kid having a gun or a serious illness at school.

Indeed, he rightly points out that many of the video games most likely to be regulated under an ecogenerist approach, like “Grand Theft Auto” or “Metal Gear Solid 4,”  have “a significant storyline with the same kind of political statement as the average Scorsese film.” Thus, he notes, “these [ecogenerist] restrictions would be impacting political speech, which is the most sacred and the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment.”  He also takes the authors of these theories to task for failing to seriously investigate the content they seek to censor.  “It is this lack of a true knowledge of the content that continually appears in so many arguments for video game regulation,” he notes.  Quite right.

Finally, we have better ways of dealing with objectionable media content, including video games, than to ban them outright or have regulators curtail content they don’t like. There is a rich mosaic of parental control tools and methods available to parents and guardians to deal with content they find unacceptable, and video game ratings and parental control tools are among the very best of any of those tools and rating systems.  As I have pointed out here far too many times to mention, we are at the stage now where our traditional reliance upon “community standards” regulation can give way to a “household standard” approach when it comes to “regulating” content.  Here’s how I put it in a recent paper I presented at Oxford University:

If it is the case that families now have the ability to effectively tailor media consumption and communications choices to their own preferences—that is, to craft their own “household standard”—then the regulatory equation can and should change.  Regulation can no longer be premised on the supposed helplessness of households to deal with content flows if families have been empowered and educated to make content determinations for themselves.  Luckily, that is the world we increasingly live in today. Parents have more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children. Going forward, our goal should be to ensure that parents or guardians have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information.  Optimally, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block objectionable materials, but also to more easily find content they feel is appropriate for their families.

And, luckily, that’s the direction most free speech jurisprudence has been turning in the U.S. in recent years. It’s the right approach for a nation that values freedom of speech and expression.  The ecogenerist approach, by contrast, would open the floodgates to unprecedented censorship of speech in this country.  It would leave lawmakers and regulators free to play the role of national nanny and censor any sort of content they found personally objectionable by equating it with toxic chemicals or dangerous weapons.  That’s lunacy and it must be rejected as antithetical to our nation’s rich First Amendment history.

[Below is an old slide show presentation I did at Penn State University about “Video Games & Public Policy.” Thought it made sense to repost it here.]

Yesterday up on Capitol Hill, I hosted a very interesting discussion about “Next-Generation Parental Controls & Child Safety Efforts.”  I thought I’d provide a quick recap here for those who couldn’t attend. [Note: audio of the event will be up shortly at the link above and transcript is in the works.] The event featured Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Corporation’s Entertainment & Devices Division; Dane Snowden, Vice President of External & State Affairs of CTIA – The Wireless Association; and Stephen Balkam, Chief Executive Officer of Family Online Safety Institute.

Steve Crown of Microsoft kicked the show off with a terrific overview of some the current and next-generation parental control tools and awareness efforts that Microsoft is deploying to help empower parents and keep kids safer both online and in gaming environments. Crown outlined Microsoft’s 5-prong strategy regarding how they have approached these issues on the gaming front, and I think it represents an excellent model of how sensible industry self-regulation and “best practices” can go a long way toward addressing concerns that many parents and policymakers have. The five strategies Crown outlined were: (1) Respect both the freedom of game creators and freedom of choice for game consumers; (2) empower parents with ratings, tools, and information; (3) use independent ratings (like the ESRB) to label content; (4) require all games be rated before they can be used on a platform so that parents can implement blocking controls; and (5) respect regional laws and rating systems in different parts of the globe.

In my book on Parental Controls & Online Child Safety: A Survey of Tools & Methods, I’ve documented many of the empowerment tools that Microsoft has deployed in recent years to make this empowerment vision a reality. One of the most important things MS does on its XBox 360 console is to provide an immediate “out-of-the-box” prompt for parents to set up parental controls and establish other limitations on online chat, spending, or Internet access. Microsoft announced another cool new feature in November 2007, the “Family Timer.” It lets parents limit how and when children play games on the console. This is similar to the time management tools Microsoft offers in its Vista operating system for PCs.  Incidentally, my wife has asked me to start using the Family Timer on our XBox — not for our kids, but for me!  This particular 40-year-old man is still a big kid at heart.

Crown also stressed the importance of “deep cooperation and coordination” when it comes to making parental empowerment a reality.  For example, when announcing the Family Timer, Microsoft also launched a new awareness campaign in conjunction with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) referred to as the “Is Your Family Set?” campaign At the same time, Microsoft and the PTA also rolled out a new “P.A.C.T.” agreement form that parents and their children could sign to reach an agreement on acceptable video game usage in the home.

To bring all these efforts together and give parents a sort of “one-stop shop” for all these gaming tools and information, in early 2009, Microsoft launched a new portal, “Get Game Smart.com.”  The GetGameSmart site provides instructions and video tutorials about how to set up parental controls and family settings, tips and advice from child safety experts, a frequent newsletter, and much more.

Again, “cooperation and coordination” was central to the Get Game Smart effort, with over 15 partners being involved. Moreover, Crown pointed out, cooperation and coordination has also been essential to the efforts of Microsoft and others in the gaming industry when it comes to “point of sale” awareness-building about game ratings.  Obviously, game developers and console makers can’t have staff on hand at every store where games or consoles might be sold. Consequently, it often falls to sales clerks and others in retail stores to convey ratings info.  Luckily, because of the partnerships that have been struck between various stakeholders all along the food chain, public awareness and use of ratings has grown rapidly. Microsoft, the ESRB, and others in the gaming industry have worked with retailers like Best Buy, WalMart, and many online vendors to make sure relevant ratings information is used at the point of sale to inform parents or limit underage access to games rated for more mature audiences.

The chart below illustrates the dramatic increase in ratings use and awareness since 1999 — from 49% awareness in 1999 to 86% by 2008.  That’s an incredible success story in terms of how industry self-regulation and best practices can go all long way toward addressing the concerns of parents and policymakers without denying the public access to a broad range of games for all ages.

Also on hand at our Hill event yesterday was Dane Snowden of the CTIA – The Wireless Association. Snowden also stressed the importance of partnerships and coordination among many diverse players to build awareness about parental controls and online safety in the mobile context. Snowden pointed out that there are well over 600 different mobile communications devices on the market today, which makes devising controls a daunting task. But both the wireless industry and independent vendors are responding with a wave of new integrated tools and add-on services that can help parents control handset use and online interactions.

For example, beginning in November 2005, CTIA unveiled new “Wireless Carrier Content Guidelines” that industry members would follow “to proactively provide tools and controls to manage wireless content offered by the carriers or available via Internet-enabled wireless devices.  According to an April 2009 filing by CTIA to the FCC, the guidelines work as follows:

Under these guidelines, participating carriers agree to develop content classification standards and educate consumers about the meaning of the chosen categories and ratings. The Notice describes the bifurcation in these content classification guidelines between “Carrier Content” and content available from other sources. The guidelines for Carrier Content cover materials that are available through a carrier’s managed content portal as well as third-party materials for which customers may be billed directly by their wireless carrier. These materials are divided into “Generally Accessible Carrier Content,” which is available to all consumers, and “Restricted Carrier Content,” which is not available to wireless users under 18 years of age without specific parental authorization.

Many major wireless carriers have already announced their plans or policies regarding such content or developed family tools to help parents protect their children. Market leaders AT&T (“SmartLimits” and “Media Net”),Verizon Wireless (“Family Locator”), T-Mobile (“Web Guard”), and Sprint (“Net Safety“) already have excellent parental control services and websites up and running.

Dane Snowden also noted that a vibrant marketplace of independent parental control tools is now thriving on many platforms, including Apple iTunes apps and Windows Mobile apps. Thus, just as was the case in the traditional PC world, we can expect to see parental control tools integrated within networks and devices and then also on top of networks and devices. That’s the best of both worlds since it gives parents a lot of flexibility and options.

Finally, my old friend Stephen Balkam of Family Online Safety Institute placed all these developments in a broader historical context. He believes we are finally seeing a shift from a “fear-based approach” to online safety toward a “fact-based approach.” Balkam cited the early fears and techno-panics that motivated misguided and ultimately unconstitutional laws such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. He also pointed out just how irrelevant such laws would have been even if they had remained on the books in light of the recent rise of problems like cyberbullying and “sexting.”

To address such concerns, Balkam stressed the importance of media literacy and digital citizenship and the need for a “Web 3.0” approach along the lines of what Anne Collier and Larry Magid have outlined in their work on the issue. Balkam also put in a plug for the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047), which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that would be administered by the Department of Justice.  Balkam argued, and I agree, that such education and counseling-based approaches represent the better approach to a “criminalization” solution.

In closing, I think the 3 key take-aways from yesterday’s discussion were:

1. Cooperation and coordination are essential when devising parental control solutions and trying to build awareness of them.
2. Additional parental empowerment tools are great, but focusing on striking the right balance is crucial.  Parental empowerment tools must be both sophisticated and simple to use at the same time.
3. Education is absolutely essential in every child safety context. Whether it’s potentially objectionable content or unwanted forms of communications, we must talk to our kids and better prepare them for life in the Digital Age.  The best “parental control” is parental interaction and ongoing conversation with our kids.