 "Photo:")
Ever since the release of Mortal Kombat, politicians and others, such as Florida attorney Jack Thompson, have pushed to censor and ban violent video games, claiming they cause children to become more violent and are "murder simulators." However, their efforts to enact anti-gaming legislation have been repeatedly struck down because the laws violate the First Amendment, or because the courts cannot find significant evidence that video games cause violent behavior, or both.
Banning and censoring video games will only set a precedent for censuring other outlets of expression. Recently, Thompson asked Florida judge Ronald Friedman to review Take-Two's video game, Bully, which is set in a school, because Thompson believed the game to be a "public nuisance."
Many First Amendment scholars were alarmed that Friedman decided to review the game. On Oct. 11 he ruled to not prohibit the sale of Bully in Florida because content wasn't much different than what you would see on TV.
Illinois governor Milorad Blagojevich passed a law banning the sale of violent and sexually explicit games to minors. The law would have gone into effect on Jan. 1, 2006, but a federal judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Similar laws in Michigan, California, Minnesota and Louisiana have also been struck down, and one in Oklahoma is expected to follow suit. These lawmakers are not only wasting their time, but taxpayers' money with these lawsuits and court cases.
There have been studies that link violent video games to aggressive behavior and studies that disprove this correlation. Whether you believe there is a link or not, video games aren't the only factor in the cause of violence. Thompson said, "In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers." However, his statement is too generalized. If they all owned and played with water guns, then logically he should blame water guns for their behavior.
Not every child who plays violent video games will turn out to be violent and kill someone. Likewise, not every violent person or killer necessarily plays violent video games. Before video games, people attacked violent movies and comics for causing violent behavior in children. Violence is inherent in human history, and trying to completely shield children away from violence is naïve.
It is ultimately a parent's responsibility, not the government's, to monitor which video games a child should play. With the help of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, parents can determine what is appropriate for their child to play. The ESRB evaluates games based on violent and sexual content, and provides an appropriate rating. The rating and content descriptors are placed visibly on a video game's packaging. Though the ESRB rating is voluntary, most publishers comply with their standards and most retailers enforce these ratings. Many retailers will not sell games rated Adults Only. With the video game industry regulating itself, I find that anti-gaming legislation is needless.
Video game violence precedent
In a 2003 case, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence ... We merely hold that the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in a cloak of parental authority."
Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now