Games Don’t Deserve Blame for Violence in Real World

I was very disappointed with your story headlined “Video Game Industry Split on Violence Issue” [May 17].

The Mediascope survey is not the most sweeping survey on the subject of violence and games. In fact, it was rather limited and was conducted by a group predisposed to the view that media violence is problematic.

Moreover, you suggest that the rating system is “confusing” and subjective. That’s unfair, since by nature any rating system is subjective. And confusing to whom? I agree that more needs to be done to increase its visibility, but confusing?

Also, to suggest that the video game industry ran and hid seems absurd. We had a trade show covering 540,000 square feet and the press had free and open rein to look and talk to whomever they wanted.

DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN

President

Interactive Digital Software Assn.

*

Speaking as a member of the computer gaming community, I must say that I am dismayed by the apparent knee-jerk reactions that everyone is having about video game violence.

These games are just that--games. They are created by talented individuals who want to create a fun and enjoyable product for the masses. Granted, they are violent, but there are ratings. For instance, “Quake II’s” box clearly states that it is intended for mature audiences, ages 17 and older, and “contains animated blood and gore and animated violence.”

The system is clear. Punishing an entire industry because of the actions of two individuals is not justice. It’s unfair and wrong.

SAM “SAMURAI” SHAHRANI

Chief executive

RadioActive Software

*

Just writing to say that I thought that the article that you wrote was excellent. Just for the record, I am a 15-year-old nerd, kind of a social outcast and listen to metal music and play lots (and I mean a lot) of video games. The problems don’t lie in the content of the game, just in the perception of the person who is playing.

NICK MATTEI

Louisville, Ky.

*

I wanted to say a few words about your story. Courts are not becoming more amenable to lawsuits against entertainment producers based on misconduct by people who use the entertainment products. Almost all the appellate decisions have gone against such lawsuits and continue to go against them today.

Unless plaintiffs had some evidence that the video game producers intended to lead people to act violently, the plaintiffs would lose. And there’ll almost never be such evidence, because producers generally have absolutely no intentions of this sort.

Likewise, governmental attempts at regulation of video games would likely fail. Speech is protected even if it depicts violence. While some argue that it’s OK to restrict such speech in an attempt to shield children, courts haven’t been hospitable to this view.

Three appellate cases have squarely confronted statutes regulating the distribution of violent materials to minors, and all three held that the statutes were unconstitutional. It’s conceivable that courts might at some point uphold narrow restrictions such as rating requirements, but today the smart money would bet against that.

EUGENE VOLOKH

Acting professor

UCLA School of Law

Business welcomes your letters. Write to: Letters to the Business Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. E-mail letters to bizletters@latimes.com. Letters must contain your address and phone number. They are subject to editing.