I found an article this weekend, an article written in response to Congress' hearings concerning video game violence and mature subject matter. It addressed the issue of an industry policing itself versus government intervention, mused on the artistic merits of video games and pondered the responsibility game designers have towards their audience, all written from the perspective of a prominent video game publisher.

No, it wasn't on a blog and it wasn't part of an online roundtable. It was a twelve year old article penned by Ken Williams, founder and CEO of the computer game company Sierra On-Line, in the magazine his company published: InterAction. The piece, which was written for his 'The Inside View' column in the Spring 1994 issue, was an lengthy look at the governmental scrutiny of video games during the nineties, and even though it took place over a decade ago, it scarily mirrors contemporary gaming issues. I've transcribed the article below and, while it veers off a bit near the end with some specious reasoning, it's an article well worth reading, especially the Author's Note which has a few remarks from Tom Kalinske (then-president of Sega of America).

I'll be providing a more detailed look at the Spring 1994 InterAction issue in an upcoming feature, but I thought this piece deserved a bit more than a brief mention and link to a scan. Enjoy.

"The Inside View - Spring 1994"

[Note to young readers: This article represents Ken Williams' opinion as to the pros and cons of freedom of speech and whether or not computer games qualify for protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The government is trying to decide what games you should be able to play. How do you feel about this? You may want to raise these issues at school for some interesting discussion.]

In last evening's paper there was an article that grabbed my attention. Sega, the video game company, had announced that it was withdrawing a game from the market. Night Trap, in case you may not have seen it, is a game in which the player tries to protect a group of young girls who are under attack by a group of ninja-like vampires. Night Trap uses live action video, and is considered by some to be excessively violent and exploitative of women.

Sega's "voluntary" withdrawal of Night Trap was as a direct result of Congressional pressure. A few weeks back government hearings were held on violence in video games, during which a Sega representative was told by a Congressman, in no uncertain terms, that Sega should clean up its act or Congress would do it for them. Sega was coerced into pulling Night Trap off of retail shelves. It was, in effect, legislated out of existence.

I am not convinced that Night Trap is a great work of art, but neither am I convinced that it deserves banning. My first reaction in reading the article was to recall scenes from the Ray Bradbury book, Fahrenheit 451, in which books considered by the government to be "harmful" were burned in the streets. This issue of a government deciding for its people what they should be able to see, read or listen to really troubles me.

My company, Sierra On-Line, publishes several products which are meant for adults, not children – for instance, our Police Quest and Leisure Suit Larry products. Leisure Suit Larry 6, which we released a few weeks ago, contains a warning label that states that the game is appropriate only for persons 17 and older. We cooperated with Sega in forming a software rating system and used the exact same warning that Sega used on Night Trap. Unfortunately, restrictive labeling appears not to be sufficient to our government. I watched the Congressional hearings on television (C-SPAN) as Sega attempted to explain to Congress that many Sega gamers are adults and that Sega products which specifically target an adult audience would carry a warning label. Sega's arguments fell on deaf ears.

Is government pressure which leads to products being pulled off the market censorship? Of course it is. Is this a good thing? Perhaps. Are there products that Sega would have released, and that adults would like to own, that will not be developed because of these hearings? Yes. Sega, and the whole video game industry, know that they are precariously close to government action. Games with controversial content will be closely examined for at least the next few years.

Should Night Trap have been banned? Should our government decide what we hear, read, play or see? Should different rules apply to video games than computer games? How about to books, records and films? Does this mean that other products which target adults, such as Police Quest, are next to be banned? This article is my attempt to look at all sides of the issue of software censorship, ratings and the bigger picture of what is and isn't appropriate on a computer, or a television for that matter.

Actually, these are very old issues. There is nothing new here. Books, records and films have already dealt with these issues. I really believe this is only an issue because it is set in consumers', and in Congressmen's, minds that Sega is a video game system, and video games are for kids. Night Trap, if it were a film, would have a hard time earning an "R" rating. There are far more violent programs on TV every night. The basic plot of scantily-clad young ladies under attack by some form of monster underlies half of all horror films that exist today.

Can video or computer games be compared to films or books? Absolutely. Books, magazines, records, video tapes, television video games, computer games, paintings and even comic books are all linked. They are creative works. They are guaranteed freedom of expression by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Each of these mediums can be used to tell a story, to state an opinion, to explore an issue, to evoke an emotion, to promote a cause, to educate and even to convey a set of values. In fact, computer and video games are the best medium available today for artistic expression. Today's multimedia computers can do text as well as any book, sound as well as any audio device and graphics equivalent to any television. The computer then steps out in front of these other mediums through its use of interactivity.

For instance, with Sierra's Police Quest product, you don't just read about how officers feel and think, you become an officer and see the world through an officer's eyes. Unfortunately, it is not a very pretty world. Cops see a side of life most of us can pretend doesn't exist. There seems to be a growing, and dangerous, gap between the public's perception of the police, and how they view themselves. Sierra's goal with his product was to try to promote an understanding of the real-world problems officers face.

Our educational products can educate in ways that no book, record or film ever dreamed of. If you have children and haven't tried one, I strongly recommend you try one of our Dream Team series of products. We use a computer to replicate having your own private tutor who guides you through learning at your pace, offering encouragement as needed. The computer industry is in its infancy; every day we are developing a better understanding of how to use computers to pioneer new ways of storytelling and educating.

Even though a computer can be more powerful in conveying a message than other mediums, it has much in common with them. All of the creative mediums – art, music, painting, photography, film, books and interactive entertainment (computer games) – are creative works. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is the best-known provision of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits Congress from making any laws that restrict Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the right to assemble peaceably. Creative works are entitled to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. This concept has been repeatedly affirmed in the courts throughout the years. In general, there are few restrictions as to what can be written, heard or viewed. All countries, however, limit manifestations of free speech that are regarded as obscene or slanderous. The extent to which speech is regarded as threatening or slanderous and the way in which limits are imposed are critical factors in determining the degree of free speech in a society. There is a very clear pattern of countries with a high degree of free speech being themselves free countries.

Sometimes it is hard to understand why freedom of speech is a good thing. For instance, on New Year's Eve a New York disk jockey, Howard Stern, had a pay-per-view television program, a televised party, that was the largest-grossing pay-per-view event of all time. The high point, as reported in national newspapers, was a lady who proved she was able to eat live maggots. One would think that good taste could be counted on to control what creative works are produced, but this appears not to be the case. Deciding where the limits are, as to what is and isn't okay in a creative work, is well beyond me.

Congress focused on the violence in Mortal Kombat, another Sega game, and on Night Trap. Violence in a creative work isn't necessarily bad. The amount of violence in a creative work cannot be used as a means of determining whether it has a right to exist. Has Congress seen the film Schindler's List? I cannot imagine a more graphic depiction of violence. Yet, this is a film which will very likely win every award as the best film of 1993. In spite of the "R" rating, many high schools, and parents, are encouraging students to see Schindler's List. Another film, The Piano, which will be seriously considered as the best film of 1993, contains material which many might see as obscene. Violence in a creative work may or may not be acceptable. Nor is it easy to define what is obscenity. In some cases the courts have even made the confusion decision that what is obscene, and therefore illegal, in one neighborhood may be legal down the street.

What I am attempting to say is that there is far more at stake here than Congress applying pressure to Sega to pull games like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat off the market. Dangerous precedents are being set that are already dramatically affecting your right to decide for yourself what you want to see. There are constitutional issues which must be addressed before more games are pushed off the market.

Congress is to be applauded for trying to accomplish something, even though some may argue, myself included, that they are off track. There is a crisis in progress and something must be done. We are living in a violent society that is getting more violent by the day. Everyone is grasping at straws to try to figure out how to reverse a trend which is starting to become scary. Murder rates are up in virtually every major city. I watched a TV news article on Sixty Minutes this week about the growing problem of children under 16 who are committing murders. A recent Seattle newspaper article mentioned a ten-year-old child who had been shot twice in a six month period in unrelated drive-by gang shootings.

Someone has to do something, and do it now. My fear is that time spent chasing games like Night Trap may consume a lot of energy, and harm a creative industry without any positive benefit. Valuable time is being lost while a bad situation is getting worse.

It is far from clear that creative works, such as Night Trap, have any significant negative impact on society. The creative output of a society is a reflection of that society. It does not form the society. Look back through history at the writings of each generation. They are reflective of that time in our history. Does anyone believe that ancient cave drawings, showing prehistoric man hunting animals, are the reason cavemen ate meat rather than become vegetarians? I do not honestly believe that airing twelve hours each day of The Brady Bunch and Ozzie and Harriet reruns would suddenly make our society any less violent. I travel the world extensively, and there are plenty of countries which depend almost exclusively on the US for their books, film and radio, that have essentially no crime – Bermuda, for instance.

In researching this article I did find a small number of news stories regarding violent incidents, where there were indications that a creative work may have been the origin. In one story, two teenage boys, according to a lawsuit filed by the child's parents, attempted suicide (one successfully) after listening to the lyrics of a song by the rock group Judas Priest. Recently, a five-year-old boy burned down his house, killing his two-year-old sister, after watching a Beavis and Butthead show, in which fire was portrayed as "fun." In another bizarre incident at least three different kids, after watching a Disney movie containing a scene where kids lie in the street playing a form of the game "chicken", got themselves killed trying to recreate the same stunt in real life. Luckily, these are the exceptions, not the rule. In the above instances, Judas Priest was cleared of any wrong doing, MTV moved the time slot of Beavis and Butthead beyond children's bedtimes, and Disney, in an unprecedented move, re-edited their film to remove the scene in question. The creative industry must always remember the power of our medium and its ability to influence people's lives. This is an awesome responsibility.

I like to focus on the values contained in a creative work, and what message underlies the content. Some works convey good values and some works convey bad values. Separating the two is not easy, and is not for governments to do. The creative industry can play an important part in bringing about positive change in people's attitudes. Many important social issues, over time, have been advanced through the arts – for instance, gay rights, women's rights and minority's rights. The movie Philadelphia is a perfect example of the arts being used to advance a controversial point of view. Sometimes people agree with what a film has to say, sometimes they disagree. Allowing the government to decide which films (or even computer games) get made is a very dangerous situation. Governments have at times hidden behind the veil of attempting to "protect" their citizenry to prevent social change. Almost all creative works have some underlying message. The makers of Night Trap claim to have had a message. They say they were trying to poke a little fun at late-night horror movies. Even Howard Stern claims to have an important message underlying his madness, although it usually eludes me.

I have my own personal, controversial, but firmly held opinion on all of this. I split people into three categories; un-adjusted, well-adjusted and mal-adjusted. People who steal, or who harm others, are mal-adjusted. Children are un-adjusted and the rest of us are reasonably well-adjusted. If a person is mal-adjusted, and is the kind of person who is going to wind up in jail, odds are that the person was on that track by the by the time he or she had reached the age of 12. If you survey the people in prison you will find the vast majority had unfortunate childhoods. There are very few who were successful high school graduates with loving parents who were brought up in "good" neighborhoods.

Children are like blank sheets of paper. They soak up the values around them like a sponge soaks up water. The older they get, the more cynical they get. By the time we reach adulthood, we are pretty set in our ways. If a child's parents, friends or even the TV shows a child watches tell a child that violence is OK, you will have a violent child. Children of abusive parents become abusive adults. Children of alcoholics often become alcoholics. Children who watch too much violent TV will assume violence is natural. Children whose parents do not have a strong work ethic will not have a strong work ethic. Children surrounded by other children who take drugs are likely to consume drugs. Children need to be taught proper values from the beginning. If they grow up wrong, they tend to be lost forever. If we can give kids a proper start on life, we will reverse the decay of America.

I support a strong ratings system because it gives adults the freedom of expression necessary to a free society, while protecting children from subject matter which might confuse them as to what is acceptable conduct. I feel adults in a free country have a right to watch films like Basic Instinct without government censorship, but see no reason children need to know about crazy women with icepicks, and failed cops, until later in life. It drives me crazy when TV networks, thinking they are protecting children, edit two minutes from an "R" rated film and then air it in prime time. It is not the amount of clothing actors wear, or even if they say a few cuss words that should be the primary factor in determining whether or not children should be exposed to particular subject matter. We really need to ask ourselves as a society whether or not a creative work conveys a set of values that we want our children to learn. If not, then let's protect our children. Our children are our future. Let's just find a way to accomplish this goal while preserving the benefits of a free press.

My recommendation: protect our youth. Software, films, records, and books must clearly outline, on the package, what the package contains. Parents must learn to look for and understand ratings. Either we control what children see, until they are old enough to understand it, or our society will pay the consequences. Censorship is not the answer. A free press, and freedom of expression, are necessary to a free country. Let's also encourage those who produce creative content, which might be absorbed by children, to understand how important it is that we send the right message.

Thank you,

Ken Williams

Author's Note:

After writing this article I forwarded a copy of Sega of America, to see if they wanted to add anything. Their President, Tom Kalinske, responded personally with a wonderful two-page letter and another dozen pages of his correspondence with political leaders. Space doesn't allow me to print his entire response, but here are a couple of paragraphs I thought you might find interesting:

"Tom Ziro [author of Night Trap] clearly believed he was making a somewhat campy take off of a "B" grade horror movie, that would be highly interactive, and difficult to solve. He is very upset by the media reaction and doubts many members of the media who criticized it ever played the game. The same forty seconds of neck-drilling footage, out of one hundred and eleven filmed minutes of digitized film, was shown over and over by the media. This is like judging the Hitchcock movie Psycho by only watching the 'shower scene' over and over. But the First Amendment also gives the media the right to do this.

"Night Trap may or may not be the greatest interactive product ever done. There are many books, plays, movies, paintings, etc. that I do not care to see; however, I will always defined the right for others to create, see and/or read them. What makes these few government officials the appropriate censor for the rest of us?"

Williams, Ken. "The Inside View." InterAction Spring 1994: 6-12.

Embedded images are those that appeared in the original article. Scanned pages of this article are available here.