Bill Would Hold Auto Manufacturers Accountable for Drivers' Actions
Washington, D.C. - A bill before the U.S. House of Representatives would hold the manufacturers and sellers of automobiles liable for any driving infractions committed or accidents caused by the drivers of their cars.
Supporters of the bill, like Will Henson of the Washington Police Department say that people who get into cars and see the speedometer goes to 120 mph are inclined to test it to see if the car can really go that fast.
"If you drive a car over and over again, you become desensitized to speed and you eventually come to think that it's OK to drive really fast and break traffic laws," says Henson. He argues that putting powerful engines with more than 60hp in cars only encourages people to use that power and commit crimes. "Auto manufacturers need to be held accountable for the flagrant way in which they allow people to easily break laws with their products."
Opponents of the bill argue that the whole thing is utter nonsense. Louis McMurray, of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association said "the whole idea is ridiculous. It's almost as stupid as, say, holding video game manufacturers responsible if kids commit crimes."
I agree that holding the makers' responsible doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it certainly makes more sense with respect to video games.
ReplyDeleteCar manufacturers may market their cars by showing a "Professional Driver on an enclosed course", and many people see it as something out of reality--i.e., people driving in the desert, someone driving in a city when there are absolutely no other cars in the street, someone off-roading in Antarctica or through the mountains. In the latter case, I think that a manufacturer IS responsible if they advertise their commercial vehicle off-roading yet it is impossible to do it (such as with a Civic).
For video games, I think it's more accurate to say that a player partakes in an action as a third person in an alternate and fabricated universe. If you have the moral compass to distinguish between the real and false universes, then it's less of a problem. But what if you can't? What sort of effect does this have on a child's psyche? (though that child's parents ARE ultimately responsible) What sort of numbing effect does it also have on adults? What does it do to a person who enjoys killing (I'm sorry, "fragging") people in a virtual world (I don't think aliens count, unless the aliens are humanized in some fashion)? All of these are, I believe, unanswered questions in the gaming world.
For some games, murder is simply a reenactment of what does happen in reality (Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six). For other games, murder and torture is done almost for the sake of enjoyment. Though I haven't played it, everything I've seen about The Punisher indicates that it falls into that category. As an example, I've seen advertisments bragging about the multitude of ways in which you can torture and/or kill somebody. Why in the hell is a game like that even made? Do game makers bear absolutely NO social responsibility? You seem to think that they don't.
I think that the ultimate question asked with this legislation is whether or not some games should even be made. Parents are ultimately responsible for what their children play, but some games are morally objectionable and, imho, should not be made. It is just another indication of our cultural rot.
I find this comment from the Washington Software Association to pretty much some up the real issue.
"We don't want to bring undo attention to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually some good economic development in our state."
Heaven forbid that we should let economic interest be dictated by a moral standard.
I side with you on this issue, Joe, but I'm fairly sympathetic to people who want this law. I think it has more merit than your automobile example exhibits.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the "3 comments", but I kept getting an error from blogspot. I erased all of the duplicates.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be nice to have a law requiring people to have a well grounded moral compass, so all actions that are amoral could be dirctly linked to the perpatrator?
ReplyDeleteBut if that were true, Eve would have died and not offered Adam the apple.
~The Blue Fox
I can see what you're trying to say, Mr. Pickles, but I also have to say that I don't feel it's up to the government to make decisions such as making companies liable for the actions of what people do. That just opens this country to even MORE lawsuits, most of which will be uterly trivial. It's another cop-out for people to get money the easy way at the expense of someone else.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if a law was passed where the loser in a lawsuit had to pay for the damages, then maybe passing things of this nature wouldn't be so bad. But until that comes around, I don't trust these types of laws.
Unfortunately, my faith in the government has dwindled significantly. I just don't trust them to pass such a law and have it be fair for all parties in question.
~ RlrlrlRLRLLRLGRLGRLGlglglglgl!
Greg:
ReplyDeleteThe analogy isn't supposed to be exact. I was just using the "reductio ad absurdum" argument to show why it's ludicrous to blanketly and uniformly hold video game manufacturers and distributors responsible for any crime committed by a minor that is "due in any part to playing the game", regardless of the moral content of the game.
One of my gripes with this law is the way it singles out video games as the scape-goat for violent crimes commetted by minors. Why are they not considering similar laws to punish movie makers or song writers or TV show producers? While there are games that are of such low moral quality that indeed they should never have been made (such as almost everything from Rockstar), the same can be said of those other three major media forms, (such as anything by Quentin Tarantino). If a kid gets a hold of a copy of Manhunt and Pulp Fiction, then goes around killing people, why does Rockstar get sued out of business, while the Q-man walks away scott free? And I don't buy that "because in a game you're actually performing the action, instead of watching someone else do it" argument. The question is whether the media can skew your morals significantly to the point where you can no longer tell right from wrong, and watching some one else do this (particularly a role model, as actors can be to kids) can have just as great an effect, if not greater. Face it, if your dad molests your sister and all you do is watch, you're going to have pretty twisted morals, even if you never participate.
But what infuriates me most is the way the law blanketly targets all games, regardless of moral content. It certainly can be argued that twisted games, like Manhunt or GTA can turn a kid amoral (but I would argue it would only be a contributing factor, not the root cause, and therefore should not be the primary target of blame), but what about "honest shooters" like Rainbow Six or Medal of Honor? These are games that are not morally ambiguous in the least. All the enemies in the game are evil (terrorists or Nazis). If a kid shoots somebody then says he was pretending the victim was a Nazi, can 2015 Interactive be held accountable because the kid was playing Allied Assault? According to the law, they probably could. It can get even more ridiculous. What if the kid goes around stealing wedding rings? Can you sue Sega for making Sonic the Hedgehog?
This issue is one particularly close to me, as I am an aspiring game developer. In our proposed "Space Pirate Mercenaries 3D of Fortune" (SPM3DOF), you will, as in all great 3D shooters, kill people. It wouldn't be a bloody game. No gibs. No flying body parts. But it would still, in the end, be a violent game. What if some kid with no parental supervision and no moral guidance gets his hands on the game (which would be rated Teen at the least), and decides he wants to blow up a building to see if it's as cool in real life as in the game (SPM3DOF will have a great physics engine!). Will I, the developer, be held accountable because of this kid's actions? No parental supervision, the kid shouldn't even have the game in the first place, there is no way the game on its own skewed the kid's morals that much, but I get blamed! WTF is up with that?
In conclusion, you are right, blaming game makers makes more sense than blaming auto manufacturers, as a car can't contribute to the moral deficiencies of a youth, while it is conceivable that a game can contribute (not cause outright), but to hold every violent game solely accountable, regardless of whether or not it is immoral, is just as absurd as the car analogy.
For the record, auto manufacturers have been sued because the driver was stupid, and game manufacturers have also been sued for crimes committed by minors. There was a $5 billion dollar suit against Nintendo, Sega, Sony, id, and about 8 others over the Columbine shootings. The judge threw it out.
And lastly, the argument that game makers shouldn't be held accountable because they create jobs is about the lamest way to approach the topic. That's like saying the porn industry shouldn't be regulated because it creates good jobs, or banning theft is wrong because it puts burglars out of work. Of the dozens of arguments for why the law is a bad idea, why choose that one?