Regulating violent video games: government policy and effects on children

Violence in Video Games

Guiding Question: Should the government have to be involved in legislation regarding video game content?

Proof 1: Explain how First Amendment ensures freedom of speech, including video game content.

"It is not the government's job to forbid content in media. It is the responsibility of the parents to decide what their children should play.

Body Paragraph 1: Music censorship case and ratings system for video games

Body Paragraph 2: Research evidence

Body Paragraph 3: Sociological implications and blaming

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution insists that citizens of the U.S. have the right to free speech. This Amendment has been utilized by artists from a wide variety of genres and talents to preserve their right to express themselves and prevent any form of censorship. Most calls for legislation regarding censorship have actually come from the parents of America's youth. Rather than take responsibility for determining whether or not a film or video game is suitable for their child, the adults call upon the government to create laws to limit content. It is not the government's role to forbid content, but the cause of the parent to decide what games their child should or should not be allowed to play.

A case of media censorship occurred in the music industry over the content of song lyrics. The findings of that inquiry were that the content of song lyrics was protected by the First Amendment. However, the music industry made a jointed conciliation and began a process of labeling CDs and records according to content. In the last few years, similar labels have been applied to the video gaming industry: E. For everyone, E10 for everyone over age ten, T for teenagers, and M. For mature (Chalk 2007). For games that are extremely violent or sexually explicit, the title can receive a rating of Ao, which stands for "Adults Only." Labels are designed to inform parents about the product they are purchasing. Besides the letters, gaming labels also show the specific reasons for which that game was given a certain rating, whether that was for violence, drug use, or sexual content if any. Yet, for some purportedly concerned parents, this is not enough. There are groups who would try to ensure that no objectionable content appears in video games at all, thus ensuring that there is no way that there precious children can get a hold of them. It is the sole responsibility of the parent to keep tabs on their children; it is not a cause of the government.

Researchers have concluded that the modern child spends an unhealthy amount of time watching television and playing video games. Consequently much of what they witness through the media influences their development throughout the rest of their lives. Scientists and behavior analysts have investigated the correlation between violent video games and negative social interactions. What they found was that people who play violent video games are quicker to react with violence and aggression to stressors (Anderson 2003). So the science does back up the position that violent games lead to violent action. This still does not meant that the government should be responsible for limiting how much violent or sexually explicit content is allowed in video games.

Rather than decide for themselves what they should allow their children exposed to, parents groups, as stated, have tried to coerce the government into regulating the video game industry, even if it means violating game creator's First Amendment rights. Eager to jump on any topic which will garner additional votes in the next election, there are legislators who have attempted to push video game-themed laws through the House of Representatives and the Senate. Crusaders look at incidences of teenage violence and use video games as a source of blame in the same way that people pointed fingers at action movies and rock and roll music in the decades before (Benedetti 2008). Some examples of these appeasing legislators are United States Senators Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl (Chalk 2007). In 2010, the United States Supreme Court debated a potential law which would impose a $1,000 fine to any store which sold rated M. games to children under the age of eighteen. The California law was originally struck down for being an unconstitutional limiting of a person's First Amendment right to free speech (Liptak 2010).

In the article "Playing the Blame Game," author Winda Benedetti quotes Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association and anti-censorship advocate, who released a rebuttal statement where he said:

When these kinds of tragedies occur, it's horrible, horrendous and sad, and it's very difficult for people to wrestle with the real issues. It's easier to say, 'Oh it was those video games that brainwashed him.' That's much easier than saying our society is messed up, people don't take care of each other, teachers aren't in control, there's rampant bullying, and there are no parents at home because they have to work two jobs (2008).

If we believed the anti-video game pundits, we would assume that all the problems of the world are the responsibility of the violent or sexual content viewed in video gaming. The problem really all comes down to accountability. Parents are too busy working or doing their own personal activities to pay enough attention to their children. This leads those children to trouble, whether it be of the virtual variety or in the real world. Without supervision, psychologically immature individuals make poor choices which can have some severe ramifications toward themselves and others.