There is an interesting case in the Supreme Court this week, that I would like to comment on.
The case is regarding violent and sexual content in video games. Games like Grand Theft Auto, God of War, and Resident Evil portray a level of violence that is heretofore unseen in the history of games.
The question at hand though is this: should these games be regulated?
Being a gamer, I will say that games should not be regulated; but being a Christian, I would say that these type of games should be regulated. Upon consideration of all of the aspects that I can conjure, I feel that such video games should not be regulated at sale, but should be marked appropriately to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about the behavior of their children.
The evidence presented for regulating violent video games is pinned on the idea that violent video games produce negative developmental effects on children. The effects include "increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased pro-social (helping) behavior." (1)
The first problem with this argument is that the evidence for a link between violent video games and the ill effects upon human beings is conflicting at best and non-extant at worst. So, to use this as justification for regulation of video games is difficult in the most optimum situation.
Another issue with the argument is that the regulation of video games begins to intrude upon the rights and responsibilities of parents to raise children. The government must always ensure that it does not remove the responsibility of parents to raise their children. The government is not a parent, and they must avoid attempting to legislate morality. The government exists to put checks on socially destructive behavior, such as fighting in school, killing people or stealing; not ensuring that everyone behaves in a morally upright manner.
Yet another problem with the argument is that the lines for defining what is "deviant violence", and what is simply normal violence. This issue is addressed by Justice Scalia in the first question: "What's a deviant, violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?" (2) When you begin regulating things that influence the sale of items on a free market you run into issues with ambiguity and line-pushing for political reasons. The impartiality of any rating agency is called into question when regulation of monetary items becomes involved. These ratings are vague; and therefore, have the potential to be 'bought'. When the ratings are simply informational only, the monetary stimulus to induce a specific rating is significantly reduced.
An extension of the issue above results in the over-application of any legislated regulation. First, it covers violent video games, then it might be easily expanded to drugs and alcohol, then perhaps to displaying homosexuality, and perhaps even religious viewpoints. The issue is avoiding the impedance of free speech.
Due to all of the above arguments, I feel that the regulation of video games should not occur, but that such games should be marked very obviously, in order to ease parents' regulation of their own children. Perhaps a rating above mature should be enacted, something like X-rated or so.
1. Anderson, Craig (October 2003). "Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions". apa.org.
2. Case 08-1448; Oral Arguments - 2 Nov 2010
I agree with you completely. It is the parent’s obligation to monitor their children's activities in anything they do. If they deem it harmful, such as violent games, than they alone should be responsible for restricting its use in their household.
ReplyDeleteYea. Sadly, a lot of folks like to shirk their responsibility as parents these days. :-o Sometimes, the ones that do actually want to be parents are tied up working two or three jobs to support their family.
ReplyDelete