Family Values and Grand Theft Auto

July 27, 2005

Family Values and Grand Theft Auto

by David M. Phelps

GTA: SA makes it cool to “bust caps.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is promising to introduce legislation that would set a fine of $5,000 on retailers who sell violent and sexually explicit video games to minors. At the same time, she has called on the Federal Trade Commission to launch an immediate investigation into how explicitly sexual material was hidden - to adults anyway — in the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas . The game was the top seller in 2004 and is the third in the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto series, one that has been lambasted by critics for denigrating women, glorifying violent crime, and encouraging the 'gangsta' lifestyle.

The hidden scenes in San Andreas were available to gamers via shared information on the Internet and allowed them to engage in onscreen 'virtual sex.' Initially, Rockstar Games, the producer of the Grand Theft series, claimed that hacker programmers created a download with program coding changes that insert the sex scenes into their game. The company has since admitted the scene is the product of one of its own programmers. Enter Sen. Clinton and a request for a government investigation.

Even without these new scenes, the Grand Theft Auto games promote society-melting vices about which all (including those in the government) ought to be concerned. Sen. Clinton noted as much: “There is no doubting the fact that the widespread availability of sexually explicit and graphically violent video games makes the challenge of parenting much harder.” This of course begs the question: how ought the availability of these games be curbed? The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), an industry association of video game companies that reviews video games and assigns ratings, can only do so much considering the multi-layered, highly complex nature of video games. Perhaps, say some, more regulation is needed to ensure that material like that in San Andreas isn't disseminated unchecked.

Sen. Clinton is reviving the age-old debate about the role of government in regulating vice. It is a worthy debate. But in the hoopla surrounding the San Andreas story, I've heard little mention of the most efficient and effective means of limiting moral pollutants like sex-soaked video games: the family.

True, Sen. Clinton rightly points out that the availability of these games “makes the challenge of parenting much harder.” The problem with this statement, however, is that it views parents as the helpless victims of a hostile culture who desperately need assistance — presumably from the government. In fact, parents are challenged by video games only insofar as they allow them in their home.

The video game industry is no different from any other business in that it responds to market pressures. If people want video games with characters that pimp, steal, assault, rape, and murder, then someone will develop and sell just such a game. Scarcity is no excuse for immorality, but it is an economic truism that where a market exists, a product emerges. While parents definitely do not wholly determine the market viability of violent and sexually explicit video games, they do (or ought to) wholly control their children's exposure to them.

This is not to say that the government has no role in enforcing basic norms of public morality. Indeed, this seems to be the sort of thing Sen. Clinton is calling for. The debate is also about how far the government should reach. The principle of subsidiarity, drawn from Catholic social teaching, holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be.

This principle applies to standards of morality as well as it does to other societal policies. If people want to limit the influence of games like San Andreas , the most effective and efficient means is by relegating the task first to an organization smaller and simpler than the federal government, such as the family. Instead of jumping immediately to a discussion of governmental fines for retailers, perhaps we first ought to ask ourselves how the problems of games like San Andreas can be dealt with by parents and families. Perhaps instead of operating in the spirit of Sen. Clinton's book, It Takes a Village (read: State), we might do better to adopt the spirit of Sen. Rick Santorum's upcoming book, It Takes a Family .

There are those who suggest that video games, films, music and other media are so pervasive that even the children of attentive parents are assaulted by immoral ideas. This is no doubt true. But is also misses the point that the family is the first line of defense against moral failure. The government does have an important role in protecting children against psychologically harmful materials, and worse. But it does not have the primary role. Socially poisonous materials like San Andreas might have a much shorter shelf life if we heard this important truth a little more often.

Comments

George Xu: georgexu149@gmail.com

Mr. Phelps.
Do you have any more examples about this, apart from Sen. Clinton? Or San Andreas?
Have you played the game yourself? Have you any idea what you are talking about?

criminal records: http://www.instantpeoplechecks.com

great article very useful in my studies

Manos Schizas: red_kings_dream@hotmail.com

Having actually played video games in the recent past, I would like to offer this piece of insight.

Most PC games, and those running on many consoles, are never actually bought by the people who play them. Rather, pirated copies are distributed for free among friends, via p2p software or illegal copying, and parents never even hear of the transaction. All it takes is a DVD writer and/or a broadband connection.

Given this fact, I should like to point out that the only way for parents to limit "exposure" to such material is for them to regularly monitor their children's computer activities.

But even that is not likely to work. A resourceful child (or any child with resourceful friends) would simply turn the volume down and be prepared to hit Alt Tab upon hearing a parent's footsteps.

There are solutions even so. Children might not be allowed consoles or private computers. Parents could perform suprise checks of the content of a pc or console. Sounds nice, doesn't it? But it is the only way.

OR, parents could just come to terms with the fact that it is only human to be intrigued by violence. Take a look at your teeth in the mirror. Some are designed (or evolved) to shred raw meat off a dying animal.

The point is not how to insulate children from scenes of violence, but how to steer them away from acts of violence. That is more complicated, because it involves more than just saying "you can't do that". But it is the thing to do, nonetheless.

Oh and Grand Theft Auto, at least the old releases I was young enough to be interested in, was one hell of a game.

Jason O'Mara: j.omara@att.net

Dear Mr. Phelps,

I was not aware of the ban in Australia, but I don't think that I would be opposed to it. I understand that it is a slippery slope from banning pornography to banning other forms of expression, but I think that there is a line where pornography ceases to be art or free speech and becomes nothing more than an act of violence. I think that it is possible to put reasonable restrictions on these sorts of things without being arbitrary or tyrannical.

I have an old college friend that now works as a crime scene investigator for a state-level agency. He has told me that there are two things that every violent criminal that he has investigated has had in common: possession of drugs, and enormous (he said ridiculous) quantities of pornography.
I think that pornography poisons minds and causes real suffering. Who was it that said "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"?

Also, thank you for remaining polite and forgiving my initial fit of belligerence. My mother would have said that it was my Irish temper, but my family has been here for four generations, so you would think that it would have been bred out by now.

Jason O'Mara
Aurora, Colorado

David Michael Phelps: dphelps@acton.org

Dear Mr. O'Mara,
Thank you for your reconsideration of my article. I agree with you that the government does have a role in matters such as these, but I suppose my main hope is that when matters such as these arise, I would rather hear more about the family from the policy makers. Of course, be they Democrat or Republican, such statements might be received as "shifting responsibilities." My problem is less with Sen. Clinton for calling for increased regulation and more with a society wherein such calls are increasingly frequent.
As an added nugget of consideration, what are your thoughts on Austraila's recent ban on the game?
DMP

Jason O'Mara: j.omara@att.net

Dr. Mr. Phelp's,

I re-read you article as you suggested, and I must admit that it seems less critical than it seemed when I first read it. Maybe I am the one with the jerky knee.

However, I still don't think that this was the best example that you could have used to illustrate the point about subsidiarity. I agree that the most effective means of protecting children (and adults) from pornography and violence is through the family. But government involvment in restricting this kind of trash does not impede the family or discourage it in any way from performing it's protective and formative functions - at least not in any way that I can see.

A better example of a detrimental government "solution" might have been about social security and the resulting abandoment of the elderly.

In your response above, you say that you are merely pointing out an unstated premise of her call for increased government involvement. But, as I stated above, while increased government involvment is not an application of the principle of subsidiary, it is not necessarily a violation of it either. In other words, her ideas in this instance are a-subsidiarity, not anti-subsidiarity.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that President Bush had weighed in on the issue. I was merely trying to compare your (mild, but I still think unnecessary) criticism of Hillary Clinton to the common knee-jerk criticism of the President's ideas - a comparison that I now regret and apologize for.

Sincerely,

Jason O'Mara
Aurora, Colorado

John Powers: jbpo@voyager.net

It seems to me you could make a toy gun out of sticks, and find extremely violent things to do with this toy.
Would Senator Clinton be issuing a $5000 fine for making toy guns with sticks?
JBP

David Michael Phelps: dphelps@acton.org

Dear Mr. O'Mara,
I am unaware of any point in this commentary where I criticize Senator Clinton. I merely point out an unstated premise of her (and many others') call for increased governmental involvement. I am also unaware of President Bush weighing in on this particular issue, but my opinion would not change if he too jumped immediately to a governmental solution before a familial one. If you wish, reread the article replacing "Senator Clinton" with "President Bush"; I am more interested in the point about subsidiarity than I am about particular politicians.

Ronald Stephens: rstephensus@comcast.net

Mr. Omera appears to overlook the overall idea presented in this article and to take opportunity to politicize the matter. Just stop it.

Ronald Stephens
Sacramento, California

Jason O'Mara: j.omara@att.net

Dear Mr. Phelps,

Since I discovered the website a few months ago, I have been a regular reader of the Acton Institute's articles. I have been in nearly complete agreement with every article until this one.

There have been and will be legitimate opportunities to criticize Hillary Clinton. This is not one of them. I am a believer in the "It takes a Family" philosophy and the principle of subsidiarity. I am a believer in the marketplace and freedom in general. But I also believe that government has a legitmate (and not small) role to play in restricting smut. The government has a legitmate interest here because pornography is so very harmful to society.

Your critcism of Ms. Clinton in this instance smacks of the knee-jerk - if President Bush is for it, then we're against it - attitude of the current Democratic Party leadership. Shame on you.

Jason O'Mara
Aurora, Colorado

Acton Commentary