Why video game censorship is not the way to go |
Ó
The Emsdetten shooting in Germany has only fired up even more the likes of Jack Thompson into pushing for not only having stricter gaming regulations, but actually making the creators and the consumers liable. Their battlecry: We must protect our children, and these video games are only feeding their minds' aggressive and potentially criminal tendencies.
Now, who would dare contest that noble goal? Who wouldn't want to protect their children, and who would want them to grow up as criminals? No one, naturally. But if that is the case, then why is this issue making such a ruckus, if in the end, we only want to forward what is best for the children's interest?
Because the issue goes way deeper than just what these kids get their hands on for entertainment. Blaming the violent video games for the criminal actions of teenagers is but the tip of the iceberg. Considerably, the proposed legislations of prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors and penalizing the producers and players alike of the said games encroach into other deeper primordial issues, such as privacy.
But let us not get into that yet. Allow me first to lay out to you what exactly are the basis for the aforementioned proposals. We all know for a fact that this anti-violent video games campaign is nothing new. Several countries, at one point in time since video games became such a hit, have already come face to face with legislations that would curb the reach of video games.
Opening the floodgates
While there may be a lot of cases involving minors and shooting sprees, the landmark case would have to be the Columbine High School shootings. The event proved to be absolutely shocking, that people for the most part were just dumbfounded at what transpired that fateful day. The perpetrators, mere students themselves, did not show any signs of aggressive behavior prior to their killing spree. They were, however, avid fans of first-person shooter games.
If minors like them, who have not been troublemakers at all, suddenly woke up one morning and came to school carrying guns to shoot their peers, what could be that one factor that triggered them to behave that way? The most convenient and convincing explanation would have to be the video games.
Examining these games, they do present a rather precise simulation of how it is to be in the thick of battle. Not only that, the actual feeling of shooting a character online elicits a real sense of adrenaline at the subconscious thought of being able to get away with it. The scenarios, after all, are not real. They are merely virtual.
But then, what to do if the virtual becomes inextricably intertwined with the real? Like what happened to the Columbine shooters? Lawmakers then wasted no time in concocting laws that would make it more improbable for such an assault to happen again. From stricter gun laws to restricting the sale of violent games to kids, they were highly confident that this is indeed the most appropriate way to prevent another outrage.
How did they get to this conclusion? According to those in support of the restrictions/banning of violent video games, there actually are findings that "suggest strong links between violent games and aggressive behavior." Back in 2004, Washington Democratic legislator Mary Lou Dickerson said, "Pediatricians and psychologists have been warning us that violent video games are harmful to children." And we must protect the children.
Yes, and we fully agree with that. But will these measures of censorship even remotely lead to that? Here's why I say it is not the way to go. Having already established the perceived necessity of the proposal, let us now weigh the benefits and detriments, as well as whether or not the proposed policies will actually lessen the violent inclinations of children.
On the point of breaking the chain of violence spurred by the blurred distinction between what's virtual and real, the presumption is that the people playing these games categorized as violent are highly impressionable. That the children, for example, are being tainted with the twisted connotation derived from the games they play that playing with guns or shooting other people can just be shrugged off, the way it is easy for them to turn off the computer when they don't want to play anymore.
The problem with this premise is that it conveniently bars other forms of medium that may very well influence a person's mental and emotional disposition as well. I say, the presumed effect of video gaming to a person's disposition is not mutually exclusive. Assuming, but not conceding, that video games do arouse aggressive behaviour to a certain extent, what then makes it different from violent movies, cartoons, or books that are also capable of eliciting violent thoughts, which can be translated into criminal action?
Questioning what makes violent games more dangerous
Proponents would most likely say that what makes video games a much more dangerous influence is that it actually allows for participation from the players themselves. Unlike in the movies or books or cartoons, the most participation they could have is to take part as an audience. Given that it may be the case, the point is that these other forms of media are just as capable of evoking violent thoughts and reactions from the audience. And as is applicable to video games, these thoughts, while they may be violent, cannot be restrained, nor penalized, unless they are taken into action.
It would seem, however, that the only way the governments know how to keep these thoughts from cropping up is to cut the source from the supposed roots. In the context of videogames, it is perceived that engaging in simulated violent environments will necessarily translate to actual violence, like the shooting rampage in Germany or Columbine. And again, we come back to the question of efficiency.
I say it will not be efficient because video games, while considered to be an influence in the disposition of a person, is not the only factor to consider. A child's environment, family upbringing, morals, friends and maturity all plays on how he would be able to separate fact from fiction.
That is why not every fan of Grand Theft Auto or Counter-Strike carries out an attack on their peers. That is why not every player of Gears of War are inclined to launch their own war. That is why not every person enjoying Resistance will most likely end up in jail for assault. In fact, it may even be said that those who do translate their violent thoughts into actual crimes or aggression are most probably already habitually violent. But that doesn't make it solely the videogame's fault.
Ignored benefits?
On the other hand, these violent video games actually may be helping the kids cope up with stress. And this ain't talking bull. It has been found in studies that these games are useful outlets for childhood aggression. Yes, even kids do entertain violent thoughts. But instead of suppressing them, or worse, acting those thoughts out, games like Counter-Strike are available for them to release their pent up emotions. And really, there's no harm done precisely because it is just a game.
Gerard Jones, in an interview with Gamasutra, explains, "Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially
for boys." Prior to the invention of computer games, most would prefer playing cops and robbers and what not. And kids still do want to play those kinds of role-play. The only difference now is that the computers gave them an alternative where they will be playing these games. Video games just created a whole new portal to the same world of imagination and make-believe through technology and computers. What will happen if you remove this outlet from the equation? Well, it could very well prove to be even more dangerous as the suppression may result to an implosion, or worse, an explosion of the child's emotions. How bad could that be? The Emsdetten shooting is an example.
Critique of feasibility
But beyond that, what exactly are the other repercussions of the proposed policy? On the level of feasibility, I say that it would only be futile at best, because even if, for example, violent games are prohibited in retail stores, there are a plethora of other avenues, especially in the internet, which can loosely go unmonitored.
The internet by itself is a mecca of all that can be deemed as good or bad for society as a whole. And even with the severest of restrictions online, there still can be no guarantee as to its efficiency. At the very least, what this will instead spawn is a whole new breed of an already problematic black market. For games? Sounds ridiculous? Maybe so. But the hard fact is that for as long as there is a market out there, you can bet on it that there will be entities ready to cater to them.
However, attacking it on the mere level of feasibility is not justification at all as to why censorship is not the way to go. But having at least shown you the peripheral detriments of the scenario, let us now move on to the more intimate issues at hand. The German legislation proposes that even the creators and the players themselves be penalized with a fine and/or one year of imprisonment for playing those games tagged as violent.
Repercussions of proposed policy on property rights
On the level of business, this very well interferes with the right of the developers and publishers to profit. Now, that may seem rather ludicrous. After all, the right to life still reigns supreme over the right to property. But for as long as there is no founded link that the right to life is necessarily infringed upon because of the enjoyment of the right to property, then there is no excuse to hold these companies liable for creating those games.
If legislators will insist that they are doing this to protect the interests of public safety, or to prevent disorder or crime, then we throw back the question at them: Why don't they curb the sale of guns instead? Or, if you want to cut the roots of the problem, why then don't they penalize the very creation of guns as it is the very tool that directly infringes on the right to life?
They never did that, and they never will. What they will instead do is just review the existing Gun laws, and then create stricter ones, that will probably make it harder for any person to purchase one over the counter. More requirements will be probably needed, as well as the guarantee from the buyer (of legal age, of course) that they will store it in a place safe from children. That is what they'll do. Not legislate for the punishment of the gun makers.
And between video games and guns, you don't have to be a genius to figure out which one's more deadly.
Repercussions of proposed policy on individual rights
On a more personal level, it actually infringes upon the right to privacy of a person. Mind you, most of the players of these games stay in their own homes. That is the beauty of the technology. You get to enjoy it in solace, or with other people, though without having to necessarily go out of your territorial bubble. Now, if this proposed censorship is passed, just imagine the implications of it to the millions of players who consider this as their own way of unwinding after a really pent-up, stressful day at work.
Corollary, the right to leisure is also encroached upon. Let's face it. It will not stop people from actually playing and wanting to play these genres. It is a choice of a personal nature that is harmless in itself, unless somebody says it's because of the influence of GTA that made him speed away in a car with the police in hot pursuit.
But really now. Much like how Gerard Jones explained it, this kind of repulsion from a particular medium always comes up whenever it promotes a new kind of hype. Legislators were also iffy when Comic Books became all the rage back then. Same thing with Rock and Roll. During those times, they were also harping on how these new media are actually affecting the disposition of the children, how it is unhealthy for them, how it opens the floodgates to moral decadence.
Even with rap music, that was how they reacted. If you'll remember, this was a pretty hot issue because supposedly, rap music with explicit lyrics are influencing people, particularly the young (it's always got to be the youth), to get involved in gangs, drugs and crime.
Now, their attention is with the video games. And with all these unfortunate events cropping up and being linked to its existence, it is but natural that the focus stays on it.
Essentially, what they have to answer is how their proposal will achieve the goal of protecting the children from all that is bad and immoral in our respective societies. With my arguments and analysis above, my take on that is their proposal can NOT nail that goal.
Policies won't hit goalWe should veer away from the convenient line of reasoning that as kids are immature and impressionable, they cannot handle the task of separating fact from fiction. Even if that may be the case, this "affliction", if you can call it as that, is not exclusive to kids alone.
The more important thing to do is to have a deeper examination of where these tendencies come from, and what actually aggravates it--beyond the realm of video games. You know what they say. Children pick up their habits from what they see from the grown-ups.
While we're all for the protection of the children and the prevention of moral decay, I say that it is not justifiable to just jump to conclusions and pin the blame on certain genres of video games merely because they appear to be the most obvious culprit. Especially because there are other factors to consider out there, and more so because there are other inherent rights that will be trampled upon.
We do, however, commend these respective governments for acting expediently on matters of social concern. But if they really are sincere in this advocacy, and are not doing this just to sweet-talk their way into the voters' subconscious, they wouldn't be so hasty in pointing out to a fall-guy just to get some bill passed.
At the end of the day, video game censorship is not the way to go because first, there is no conclusive link that would show video games' responsibility to the criminal tendencies of a person. Corollary to that, it may prove to be more detrimental as it would eliminate an outlet for natural behaviour of rough play.
On the level of feasibility, it would not deliver the promised goal of curbing the desire for such games if supply is cut. It will, rather, just exacerbate the already unstoppable problem of the black market, thus creating an even bigger monitoring and regulation dilemma.
On the level of enjoying personal rights, penalizing the creators for developing such games encroach upon their right to profit and property, while for the individual, it would infringe upon his right to privacy and leisure.
So, if you guys don't want your games taken away from you, play nice. And keep it virtual.
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
if he acually cared about the children wouldnt he be working on the prevention of global warming? The past couple of year I've been having green christmas's but 10 years ago we'd have 6" of snow by now! So when he says hes looking out for the children hes just using that as a lame excuse. First we need to create a future which acually has a place to live!
What happened to being plain old crazy? Nowadays there needs to be reason and something to blame, though guns are deadly, ultimately it's the user's fault. Teenagers having easy access to guns is also to blame, though I dunno if that would have stopped them.
If you don't know killing or stealing is wrong then obviously there's something wrong with you.
Anyone ever notice how bad cartoons use to be.. and how non-violent they are now? I'm 27.. and my parents use to watch old bugs bunny.. How many times do you see them shooting each other for no good reason on those cartoons? We don't think much about it now, but you won't ever see anyone with a shot gun accidentally shooting a duck in the face in today's cartoons.. I bet Jack Thompson use to watch those old violent cartoons.. and he thinks he turned out fine... And yet you could easily point the finger at people his age that are killing people and just blame it on what shows or games he played as a child.. Do you think that the would of considered banning kids from playing cowboys and indians years ago.. just because they pretented to shoot each other??
All this sh*t about videogame censorship make me want to shoot someone...
j/k
I agree with this article for the most part. I also think that video games can support violence also. Sure you can play an FPS and then want to shoot someones head off because so and so pissed you off, but that doesnt mean that the game was the sole reason for the shooting. But I also believe that it does have some influence in the shooting because the FPS introduces some people to particular situations where a gun and blood is involved, if you know what i mean. On the flip side, games aren't the only form of media out there that depicts violence, but just DEPICTING the violence is still pretty bad.
I'm not saying I want GTA, Halo, Counter Strike, or any other games that have guns in it disappearing anytime soon. I just want people to know that games are part of the problem also, to a certain extent. For now we can't really say if games are the #1 cause of the problem, but this topic is still debatable and one that we will see popping up several more times in the near future. Lets just hope the outcome isn't the banning of all games now.
Ok when I'm pissed I can go stab someone instead of playing Halo
I agree with you (not the person who wants to stab somone).
We don't need the games banned. If germany is gonna ban violent games, they also need to ban violent books, movies, tv shows, paintings, photos, sculptures, and music as well to be fair to the other media forms. Heck, if they do that, they also should ristrict anyone who even looks like the're a voilent person from leaving their house!
I want to see more thought-provoking and controversial news articles just like this one on qj, even if strong opinions seem to rub some readers the wrong way.
Global warming has made the average teamperature rise 1 degree in the past 100 years. While it is a problem, it is not the reason you are not getting snow. I agree that we need to cut down on our emmisions and find cleaner sources of energy, but the apocalypse is not on the horizon.
...lol
If someone is so mentally unstable that seing something violent or acting out a make believe violent scenario makes them want to kill people then they have deep personality issues that need to be addressed by a psyciatrist. I'm not that old myself and ive been playing violent videogames since i was 7 and the idea of hurting or killing someone has NEVER in the least bit occured to me. I know what applies to me doesnt apply to everyone, but it has to mean something. I am saying that any child of a halfway-reasonable age should be able to handle a little gore.
every single man woman and child should be free to access any and all media. freedom of information is a right, and if everyone is free to give their opinion then we we all be able to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and that means our kids
children are influenced easily they sometimes don't know what is real and not real example when I was about 11 or 12 years old I went to the arcades and say mortal kombat and I thought those were real people inside the screen how stupid well I think other kids fell the similar as games are getting more and more realistic, kids should not be playing violent videogames there is a rating system for crying out loud the problem is that most parents don't care, It is up to the parents it is just like a violent movie it is up to the parents to not let there kids watch it same for games and games are worse because it is interactive the videogame industry has done there part there is a rating system it is up to the parents or guardian. But if you are 17 years old and you shoot somebody its not the game its you.
In this country, the United States, there is absolutely NO effort by anyone to ban these violent, "mature"-rated games. There is an effort to stop their sale to minors. Period. Big freaking difference.
The industry itself, by the "M" rating, admits they are harmful to kids and yet markets the *****ens out of them to kids. The FTC has found that any M game is sold to kids of any age 42% of the time. That is a huge failure rate of the entire rating system.
Brain scan studies at Harvard and elsewhere show that kids process these violent games in a different part of the brain than do adults--in the amygdala--which is where the violence copycatting comes from. So the neurobiology underscores the legitimacy of what we are trying to do.
Abuse of liberty always leads to a constriction of liberty. It is the video game industry that will spawn more Columbines which will lead to calls for a total BAN on the games. I'm trying to prevent that, but the gaming industry knuckleheads and their lemming-like players only see the short term.
Either join me in efforts to stop the sale of adult games to kids, or all of your games are going to be taken away from even adults. That is what is happening in Germany. That is what will happen here unless game ratings are enforced. Your choice. Choose wisely.
Jack Thompson
you were 12 and you thought that there were real people behind the screen? You were not very samrt. And please dont fault parents for rasing mature kids. How many people do you know that had to wait till they were 13 to see a PG13 movie? The rating system is only as conservative as it is to avoid law suits.
This will never happen in America and I have evidence. When Indiana actually passed a law banning violent coin-operated arcade games it was almost immediately found unconstitutiona l and repealed. And support for our cause is only growing. And the amygdala is not where violence copycatting comes from. It is where emotions come from. More extensive studies indicate that there are no effects on kids playing violent video game that last beyond the time when the turn off the game. Please do your research before you make broad, general statements like this.