Vote In Favor Against Not Voting Undecided

Republican 95% 0% 4% 22 total votes

Democrat 87% 12% 0% 16 total votes

Voters 0% 100% 0% 1 total vote

Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Drolet's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 1, 2005]
Rep. Drolet, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

While this bill is well-intended, it is unnecessary and would plainly violate the First Amendment.

Restricting minors' access to video games based on 'violent' content is contrary to overwhelming judicial precedent. Every court having considered the issue has held that the government may not impose a content-based legal burden on video games or minors' access to video games. In these cases, courts have uniformly held that video games, just like books, movies, and television, are fully protected expression under the First Amendment. Courts have struck down parallel laws attempting to restrict the distribution of 'violent' video games because they failed to meet the exacting standards of strict scrutiny.

Restrictions on 'violent' video games may not be justified under the narrow doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Under that doctrine, 'violent' speech may only be regulated if such speech is 'directed to inciting' and 'likely' to incite 'imminent' violence. The courts have uniformly held that there is no proof that 'violent' video games (or any video games) have a causal link to real-world harm.

This bill is not supported by the most independent research performed on the subject. Dr. Olson, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School's Center for Mental Health and Media concluded in an article in Academic Psychiatry, Summer, 2004, 'Contrary to media headlines and public perceptions, there is little evidence of a substantial link between exposure to violent interactive games and serious real life violence or crime...It's time to move beyond blanket condemnations and frightening anecdotes and focus on developing targeted educational and policy interventions based on solid data.' Even the Journal of the American Medical Association published research by Brian Vastag last fall finds that 'Consensus is lacking on whether video games with violent content fuel aggressive behavior in children and adolescents.' This summer, the first long-term longitudinal study on the effects of playing online violent video games, funded by the University of Michigan, found no long-term increased levels of aggression from online game play.

Additionally, restricting 'violent' video games can not be upheld as a traditional 'harmful to minors' statute. That narrow category, which may be regulated consistent with the First Amendment, is unquestionably limited to sexual speech. Two federal courts of appeals rejected 'harmful to minors'-styled enactments that restricted minors' access to 'violent' video games. And in a recent case in Washington, the federal district court expressly rejected a lower level 'harmful to minors' standard of scrutiny, noting that the Supreme Court has limited that analysis to material 'which is of sexual interest to minors.'

Finally, this bill is unconstitutional for the additional reason that there are less speech-restrictive alternatives to achieve the bill's end. The ESRB rating system which retailers across the state of Michigan are voluntarily enforcing represents one such less restrictive alternative."

Reply

2) Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on May 13, 2005]
Senator Cropsey asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows:

For the last several weeks, the Judiciary Committee has been working on legislation dealing with what I would call the youth protection package. Many people in the media would call this the violent video or violent video game package. Because of the interest that this has generated and because of the serious nature of this type of legislation, I feel it is very important that we put into the record what we are about and we say here today. In looking into the case law on this issue, in which there has been at least six different courts that have ruled the legislation unconstitutional. We have had to craft this legislation very carefully. We have looked, especially at the latest case law on this, and we believe we have found the way in which we can write a constitutional law.

One of the key things we have to do is lay the basis for this legislation. Take a look at the scientific studies in this area as recently as 2004 from the Journal of Adolescence in an article entitled "An update on the effects of playing violent video games." This article starts out this way: "For many in the general public, the problem of video game violence first emerged with school shootings by avid players of such games at West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; and Littleton, Colorado. More recent violent crimes that have been linked to violent video games include a school shooting spree in Santee, California; a violent crime spree in Oakland, California; five homicides in Long Prairie and Minneapolis, Minnesota; beating deaths in Media, Ohio; and Wyoming, Michigan; school shootings in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania; and Red Lion, Pennsylvania; and the Washington, D.C., 'Beltway' sniper shootings. Video game related violent crimes have also been reported in several other industrialized countries, including Germany and Japan."

In an article copy written in 2000, "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life, "it talked about the Littleton, Colorado, situation in which "Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train officers to effectively kill." A little bit later in the study, "Unfortunately, such video games now dominate the market." That was by a researcher in 1998 who sampled 33 popular games and found that nearly 80 percent of the games were violent in nature. Interesting enough, she found that 21 pecent of these games portrayed violence toward women.

Another article that is a little bit older, but still talks about "The Influence of Media Violence on Youth," and this was joined by one of the major researches in the area, Craig Anderson. They stated this: "Though the scientific debate over whether media violence, increases aggression and violence is essentially over, several critical task remain."

The science is now in such a state that violence and media is known to cause violence in society. This bill would address the sale and rental of ultra-violent material to minors. As promised, the Judiciary Committee has done its homework. We have exercised due diligence. Courts have regularly concluded that the physical and psychological well-being of youth is a compelling governmental interest, but the difficulty has been in demonstrating necessity or narrow tailoring. That is where the social sciences comes in. If it demonstrates a danger and focuses on the material having that effect, the statute can pass constitutional muster. And so the Judiciary Committee has worked towards determining the scientific basis for addressing violent entertainment. I have read a multitude of peer-reviewed, published studies on the effect of violent videos and violent video games on increased aggressiveness and destructive behavior. I have copies of at least 40 of the studies here on my desk if anyone would like to see them.

The topic of the effect of violent entertainment on youth is critical. Over 1,000 studies have been conducted, and almost unanimously they come to the same conclusion. Violent media and violent video games have a harmful effect on minors. Let me repeat that. Violent media and violent video games have a harmful effect on minors. Those studies led six major professional organizations in the health field to find the science conclusive. In a joint statement issued in July of 2000, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association concluded, and I quote "Well over 1,000 studies point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

Quoting from Dr.Saunders, an expert witness who testified in the Judiciary Committee, "The correlation between media violence and aggression is stronger than that of failure to use a condom and HIV, secondhand smoke and lung cancer, lead exposure in children and lower IQs, use of the nicotine patch and smoking cessation, calcium intake and bone mass, homework and academic achievement, and asbestos exposure and cancer of the larynx. The acceptance of all these lesser correlations as indicating causation leads to the conclusion that correlation in the case of the media ought to be considered sufficient to allow society to proceed on the assumption that there is causation."

This is not a desk argument; this is not academic ivory tower speculation. This is scientifically validated. It is so important that I want to quote from several of the studies:

From a study in 1991: 14 years ago, entitled "Effects of Media Violence on Viewers' Aggression in Unconstrained Social Interaction: Does exposure to media violence increase viewers' aggression? Our review of 28 experiments examining children's and adolescents' spontaneous aggression during unconstrained social interaction reveals that it does."

From a 2001 study entitled, "Effects of Reducing Children's Television and Video Game Use on Aggressive Behavior: In this study, an intervention to reduce television, videotape, and video game use decreased aggressive behavior in third- and fourth-grade children. Because the intervention targeted reduction of media use alone, without substituting alternative behaviors or activities, these results are also additional evidence for the causal effects of these media on children's aggressive behavior."

From a 2002 study entitled, "Television Viewing and Aggressive Behavior During Adolescence and Adulthood: In the male subsample, television viewing at mean age 14 was associated with subsequent assaults or fights resulting in injury and any aggressive act against another person."

From a 2003 study entitled, "Types of Media Violence and Degree of Acceptance in Under-18s"--two quotes--"So, it may well be that there is not a predisposition toward watching violent films in people with violent impulses but rather an early learning that generates a selective attentional or observational process when exposed to rewarded violent behaviors. This is coherent with the idea that young people perceive violence more positively as they watch more and more violence." And another, "Our research in the line of Kremar and Valkenburg of the link between moral development and behaviors shows that certain kinds of antisocial behavior are related to moral development in youths." Just a reminder, this is a quote from a peer-reviewed, scientific research study.

From another 2003 study entitled, "Violent Media Content and Aggressiveness in Adolescents: Results of this study largely support the downward spiral model for the relationship of violent-media content use and aggressiveness among adolescents."

From a 2005 study entitled, "Media Violence Exposure in Aggressive and Control Adolescents: Differences in Self- and Parent-Reported Exposure to Violence on Television and in Video Games: The results of this study show a relationship between video game and television media violence exposure and an aggressive Disruptive Behavior Disorder Diagnosis in adolescents."

Let me close with three chilling quotes. In a 1999 study entitled, "Film Violence and Young Offenders," after looking at the increasing level of violence in programming, referenced in findings of a 1978 study of over 1,500 teenagers, and found that, "Those who watched a greater amount of violent television committed markedly more seriously harmful criminal acts. The less serious categories of criminal acts were also positively associated with greater exposure to violence on television." From this same study, "Results indicated that following the introduction of television, homicide rates doubled in Canada and the United States. Whereas in South Africa, where television did not as yet exist, white homicide rates remained the same over time." The study later found that homicide rates increased dramatically after TV was introduced to South Africa.

Lastly, in a 2000 meta study titled, "Impact of Media on Children and Adolescents: A Ten Year Review of the Research," the researcher talked about how in other countries the introduction of TV and the corresponding violent programming affected viewers and the crime rate. He also discussed the findings that in the United States programming was becoming increasingly more violent year by year, and this corresponded to a higher crime rate over the decades. He then summarizes by including this heart-stopping comment, "Although acknowledging television exposure is only one factor that influences violence, Centerwall hypothesized that if television technology had never been developed, there would be 10,000--ten thousand--fewer homicides in the United States each year, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults."

In closing, someone may say, "Well, the studies are interesting, but what has that got to do with real life in Michigan?" The committee heard testimony from Sheriff Gene Wriggelsworth here in Ingham County. Last winter, his department responded to a two-car fatal crash just south of the city of Mason. The crash occurred on a curve with a double yellow line and posted "No Passing Zone." The crash occurred because a 16-year-old driver attempted to pass another car while driving at a high speed. In an oncoming car was a father taking his 12-year-old son to a soccer game. The father was killed and his son seriously injured.

Listen to a few quotes from the police report, referencing the 16-year-old driver who caused the crash and killed the father: "Craig (name of the witness) stated that Anthony (the driver at fault) was playing True Crime: Streets of L.A. prior to the accident. Craig stated he told Anthony about how the car shifted from manual to automatic. Craig went on to state that he told Anthony to check out the gears. At that time, Craig advised that Anthony stated, 'I'm going to check out the gears.' Then Monroe (who was another witness) stated Anthony...were both bragging about driving recklessly on the roads and never getting caught by the police. Anthony stated he drives just like they do on the video games and both of them were playing games for hours before the accident. Monroe stated that another witness told Anthony that the car he was driving belonged to his ex-girlfriend and had a passing gear just like the car they were driving in the video game and the car was very fast and he should try it."

As an aside, the car was reported stolen earlier.

Going on, "Monroe stated that before he left the house, Anthony stated he was going to--quote--'drive crazy just like the video game." A few minutes later, Anthony did indeed check out the gears, drove just like in the video game, and ended up killing a father, seriously injuring a young boy, and destroying a family's hopes and dreams.

I have the police report here on my desk, as well as pictures from the crash scene, which I welcome anyone of you to see, but I warn you, the pictures are graphic and very disturbing. You may hear from some high-priced attorneys from another state about the free speech rights of the industry, but the free speech rights of that industry destroyed a family here in Ingham County last year and ended a father's free speech rights forever.

How many fatalities do we need before we do something? How many assaults? How many rapes? How many ruined lives? How many of our youth need to be locked up because they believed the lie of the entertainment industry that violence is an acceptable way to solve social problems?

The answer is we need no more. We already have the social wreckage. We have the absolutely overwhelming empirical evidence in scientific research. We have established the compelling governmental interest that the courts say we need to establish. We have a narrowly-tailored bill, suited to meet the need. And we have the responsibility to protect all of our citizens from the dangers our youth face from inappropriate exposure to harmful ultra-violent material.

I urge your support for Senate Bill Nos. 416, 463, and 464.

Reply

3) Sen. Brater's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on May 13, 2005]
Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.416.

Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

While I applaud the sponsor of Senate Bill No.416 for attempting to address the problem of youth violence, I did not support this bill due to concerns I have about the legality of this proposal. I am concerned that by restricting the sale and purchase of violent video games, this proposal will be considered a content-based regulation of speech, which violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I intend to work with my colleagues to continue our efforts to address the problem of youth violence, but I voted "no" on this bill since I believe it will not survive judicial review.

Reply

View Full Conversation