This week in a sometimes testy hearing, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court struggled to define how the First Amendment should apply to a new medium. The medium - video games. Read the article from the New York Timesand weigh in with your opinion. The justices ask several interesting and philosophical questions. Address those questions and provide your own opinion as to whether or not you think the ban is a violation of First Amendment rights or a protection for American citizens.
I want to begin by saying that I have never played violent video games, or any video games for that matter, so my knowledge on their graphic scope and residual effects are limited.
I would want to have more details on the effects of violent video games on young children before I could really commit to one side, but my gut reaction is one of disgust at the idea of children playing games that "include...torturing violence upon small children and women.”
In the article, one of the opponents of the ban on video games likened the games to some of Grimm’s fairy tales. He argues that Grimm’s tales are violent too, but no one is looking to ban them. His point, though, does not consider several things. Grimm’s fairy tales are written works of fiction and are in no way interactive. You can read the stories over and over again, but in a video game, you control the scenario. You make the decisions that will lead to violence. In fact, you are rewarded for it. Movies are not nearly as interactive as video games, and even they have ratings at the theatre to deter young children from wandering into a movie far too mature for their viewing. There is no doubt that children should be limited in their exposure to violent video games. But is it the government’s job to enforce such a law? It’s a difficult issue.
The government does regulate depictions of sex, but is unsure if they should extend this ban to violence. I think that initiating the ban would be an encroachment on freedom of speech, but I still do believe that parents should be responsible enough to keep things like “Mortal Kombat” from their children. Young children would not have the opportunity to buy such video games without the consent of their parents regardless of the law, and teenagers of 16 and 17 that are able to buy the video game due to more independence are probably old enough to make the decision for themselves anyway. By opening the floor up to debate on what is too violent or not, the government is definitely overstepping their boundaries laid out by the 1st Amendment. Overregulation is almost never the answer for problems such as these, because it creates a stigma that makes whatever the banned thing is more interesting than it needs to be. Prime example: our highly inflated drinking age and America’s notorious problem with binge drinking.
The First Amendment is very important, but I don’t think it’s a big deal to censor things as long as the punishment isn’t death, physical harm, or incarceration, as long as the censored items are listed somewhere and not stricken from every database everywhere, and as long as there is a fair number of diverse people in agreement of what is to be censored. People get extremely protective of their right to free speech, and it’s not without just cause. I think that it’s perfectly healthy to contend over how much a government is censoring something – the absence of the arguing would be a symptom of the type of apathy that allows totalitarianism. So, there is no real answer to whether or not censoring video games is a violation of free speech – it is and isn’t a violation conditional to each game being censored.
As far as video games go, if the Supreme Court were to be against the video games, they should go all out and keep companies from developing and marketing “deviant violent video games.” It sounds like common sense, but, more people buy the violent games when they are high quality, marketed, and available at most game retailers – all of these are greatly diminished if major gaming industries don’t make the games in the first place. I don’t see how the government could ever have the resources to prevent the sale of games to minors alone.
And as far as these philosophical questions the judges pose, I will do my best to address them. I’m not sure if I’m addressing the right questions though…
1-Create a panel of perfect moderate Americans and make them preview every single game distributed by the industries and decide whether or not it is a “deviant violent video game” or is a “normal violent video game.” Haha, yeah, never mind, that’s stupid. But seriously, there isn’t a list of very specific items to go by that can be used to reference as to what’s “too much,” what’s “fine,” and what’s “acceptable, albeit distasteful.” If these censorships are to rule the American people, maybe the government should consider taking frequent polls with short previews of each game being considered to decide what should and should not be restricted.
2-I’ve never played Grimm’s Fairy Tales. If it’s a question of deciding what games are over-the-top, refer to the question above. 3- I think a large panel of psychologists should be consulted about how video games are different from other mediums about which Justices assign some low value. I personally think that video games should be considered differently than books, movies, and music because video games assign a cause/effect and action/reward to the consumer. The reward factor for violence has psychological impact on a person’s decision making process. It’s like mental conditioning. Of course, there’s nothing to say that mature people can’t handle these games, but I would think that more mature people probably would have better things to do than play the games long enough for them to make major impacts on their thinking anyways. In shorter words: I think those who are more immature are also those who would play violent video games the most.
So yeah…heated debate should be occurring over this subject by those who decide censorship. I think the true breach of Freedom of Speech would be having a be-all and end-all law for this. I’m not sure if I’m using this correctly, but I think this could be called a quandary – the only right course of action would be to argue indefinitely over the right course of action.
The first amendment protects everything from freedom of speech, to freedom of expression. I think the ban is against the first Amendment rights because, our founding fathers made it clear that they wanted Americans to have complete freedom when choosing how to live their life. Kids that want violent video games will find a way to buy them, even if its through an older brother or 18 year old friend. Children and teens will not be effected by video games. Most kids that play violent video games turn out like everyone else. Video games are getting more and more violent but that is actually an increase in the market. If you hold these back this leads to more and more people losing jobs.
“What’s a deviant violent video game?” -I rerally don't think that there can be a real definition for this because video games these days have some type of violence or sexual content in them.
Love your point about how the only right course of action if to argue infinitely over the right course of action. I kind of think that is what our country's gov't does. But how realistic is that? And though I personally hate video games and do not see the appeal, I still wonder: if violent video games were preempted (or preempted on a case by case basis), what would stop the gov't from having just cause to put restrictions on books like Fight Club? Or movies like There Will Be Blood (or something more violent than this...nothing immediately springs to mind.) Is a ban the proper solution to the problem?
I think that the ban is against the first amendment. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, the freedom of press, etc. It basically gives us the freedom to do what we want and live our lives however we desire. I have played games like this before with my cousins and friends and I'm not very favorable of them. And I know from experience that kids will find anyway to get these games. When people think of violent video games, they think that they are inspiring violence to younger kids. That is somewhat true! About three two years ago a young man went on a killing spree, in consideration of the game Grand Auto Theft. But just because he did that doesn't mean it will happen to everyone else.But hypothetically we have to think about the safety of everyone else. It seems like most of these games have profanity, sexual content, some sort of violence,etc. So maybe the Supreme Court should ban it!
Let me start by saying I've had my share of violent video games. Nothing crazy sad and violent, but Mortal Combat and shoot em' up games for sure. I think that this really boils down to parenting and the individual. I can see how if a young, aware, child was exposed to these games, how it may affect there attitudes toward violence. How it could desensitize a child from violence. Is it the governments job to decide whats just violent and whats too violent? Is it the governments place at all? I'm not sure a ban is the right course of action. I agree that children may be better off if they aren't exposed to these video violence. Is it the governments place or the parents place? I feel that its the parents place to regulate what their kids watch and play. The government has bigger fish to fry in my opinion. This being said, I want to make it clear that I don't support the guy thats playing violent video games right now and has been for the last 12 hours, he's been consumed by them, thats his life. This behavior can't be healthy for one.
Though I don’t agree with the idea of letting kids play these types of violent video games, I don’t think it would be possible to place a ban on violent video games without also placing one on violent movies, TV shows, books, comics, ect., because in my opinion, it all falls under the same type of entertainment. Nationally, I don’t think anything like this would ever be passed. However, on a state level, I think it would be easier. Generally though, I think this type of issue has can only be handled by the parents.
“What’s a deviant violent video game?” I think is a very important question because, someone will have to create a set of standards for this type of restriction. This could be a some what impossible task due to the fact that so many people have such varying opinions on the matter and finding a compromise would be difficult.
Justice Steven G. Breyer said that common sense should allow the government to help parents protect their children. But this is exactly what the public doesn’t want. It seems that right now most people don’t want the government telling what they can and can’t do and how they should be raising their children. Personally, I think any good parent has enough common sense to know that these types of games aren’t good for their children.
First of all I think that it is silly that this issue even went to the Supreme Court. Of course it is a violation of the the first amendment. We have the right to say express ourselves however we want and that applies to violent video games as well. Whether or not parents allow their children to play them is a different story. Regarding the questions (and I hope I am answering all of them) I think that a deviant violent video game would be something that promotes criminal behavior or violent actions. People are going to behave in violent ways with or without these video games. Crime did not begin with the invention of video games. Justice Sotomayor made a good point about how we decide which category of speech has low value. All forms of speech are granted to us as citizens of the United States. I think that this issue leads back to parenting. If they do their job right then the values that these games promote will not have a big effect on them.
I don't think that putting an age limit on video games is a violation of the first amendment. I think that trying to ban the creation of these video games would violate the freedom of expression. Ultimately I think it is up the parents to decide what their kids are exposed to and I don't think any parent would want to be told how to raise their kids by the government. However I do think that there is an age when you are too young to be playing a video game where you are controling a character that is shooting and killing people. I think there is a reason why they say that some video games are rated for mature audiences only.
Justice Antonin Scalia made a good point when he said “What’s a deviant violent video game?”. I think there would have to be a specific set of characteristics in order to decide what makes a deviant violent video game. Different people are going to have different opinions on what is too gory or too violent for their kid and it would be impossible to regulate what kind of video game a kid can and cannot play. Again I think it should be up to the parent or guardian to decide. Video games are not the only medium that portrays extremely offensive material, it can be found in movies, T.V. shows, comic books and magazines. So even if they did find a way to control it, they are going to end up seeing it some where else.
Well, I personally have not played violent video games. But I have heard about the violence in them. I also feel that violence towards children and women is just horrible for children to be a part of.
I think it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. But The issue is whether or not the parent should let their children play these violent video games? Justice Scalia asked "What's a deviant violent video game? As opposed to what? a normal video game?" I think she made a good point. Who is the judge of whether a video is violent or not and to what degree of violence? I think that the parents of the children should determine whether their child should play violent games and which ones. Some kids are more mature and more "aware" than others. Some kids know right from wrong better than others. It all depends on the children and parents in my opinion. My question is, what happened to video game ratings???
@Mona- I agree with how you think that there would have to be a specific set of characteristics in order to decide what makes a deviant violent video game. In my opinion, it'll be hard to make a set of characteristics. Different people's views on violence for their children may be different.
Okay, in my opinion I feel as if there is NO WAY the government can actually ban children from playing violent games. They could, but it would be a waste of time and money. This is also a violation of our First Amendment rights. The government does not have the authority to control what Americans watch or play. This is just like having to be 18 to purchase porn. Obviously that doesnt work. The government keeps trying to dictate how we live our everyday lives and it's just not going to work. Children are going to find ways to play these games, and for some it might not even be that hard, all they have to do is get their parents or older sibling to buy it.
This is a parental decision, not a governmental decision.I've played many different types of games and none of them effected me in anyway. So I think it depends on the child and their mindset.
The ban does go against the First Amendments reasoning. We all have the right to certain privileges as obtained from this amendment. I agree that parents should be the ones to regulate whether or not their children are allowed to play these types of video games. It should be left up to them to decide. Now, I don't necessarily condone younger children playing though.
A "deviant violent The ban does go against the First Amendments reasoning. We all have the right to certain privileges as obtained from this amendment. I agree that parents should be the ones to regulate whether or not their children are allowed to play these types of . It should be left up to them to decide. Now, I don't necessarily condone younger children playing though. A "deviant violent video game"- It's just the same as the epidemic that happened with Rockstar's line of Grand Theft Auto games. People were questioning whether it would pass a negative influence on to the players of the and in turn cause them to imitate scenes and actions from the games. I think that a person crazy enough to reenact activities such as the ones depicted, had every intention to do so beforehand.
Like I said, it just all goes back to the morals a parent holds for raising their children. If they allow them, it's their decision.
This issue should be left up to the parent in my opinion. I see it as a more personal thing. My parents didnt want me playing violent games growing up, so they didn't allow me to, until they felt I could handle it. There should be no law interfering with buying certain games. I say just let a parent use their judgement based on their child. Also I feel the law would violate the 1st Amendment rights in a way. I see how they are trying to protect our citizens, but it's a bit overboard. I say we trust the parents out there.
I totally believe that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment basically gives us the freedom and right to live our lives as horrible or great as we would please. I also feel that a "deviant" video game is dependent upon the definition of violence to the individual. My definition of too violent may be completely normal to someone else. Personally I love video games. I play Call of Duty and Halo on a regular basis and have since I was younger, and I'm not a serial killer nor do I behave demonically. There's nothing wrong with playin violent video games. The real potential problem is when you are first exposed to them and how long you play them. Of coarse if you let your 3 or 4 year old child start playing Mortal Combat when you haven't properly taught them that it's just a game and all the other important values to come with it, their going to behave in a deviant and irregular way. Like Ben stated, it is also an issue when you do nothing but sit on your bottom and play games like that for hours at a time. This relies heavliy on the parents and their method of raising their child. I dont think it is the government's responsibility to control what and how much of these type games kids and teens can play. The government can try to regulate this issue but the chances of it being effective are slim to none.
I do believe the ban would be a big violation of the first amend. I, a long time video game fan can say from experience hat video games grow more and more violent every year. The envelope for more blood and exposure in video games is pushed to an extreme level with ach passing year. I also can infer form my experience though that those games have not caused my mind to be obstructed in any negative way form or fashion because in the end most people have to just realize it's entertainment...a game.
I feel that the government shouldn't have any jurisdiction when it comes to the entertainment American citizens chose for themselves or their children. Banning violent video games is a violation of the first amendment and is getting very close to censorship. Video games already have a rating system in place, and you can not buy a mature rated game unless you meet the age requirements anyway, so as far as i'm concerned the government has done all they need to to control them.
However, there is a problem if little children are playing violent games, but that falls directly on their parents. This whole issue shouldn't be about the government, it should be about making parents accountable for what they expose their children to. But as it stands today there is a double standard, a family can take children to see an R rated movie and nobody will say a thing, but if some 5 year old plays a violent game then it goes to the courts. The bottom line is that this is a parenting issue and nothing else.
Like my other classmates have stated, its interfering with the freedom of speech. Personally I don't think that the government should have any say so on banning deviant videos games. Even though you have to be 18 or older to by certain video games, parents still have the right to go and get whatever game they feel they want their children to have whether its deviant or not. I also don't think that a video game has a personal effect on anyone. People have a mind of their own, some people use theirs wisely and others choose not too, so i don't feel that its the video games. My question is that not only video games contains violent actions but tv stations and also music, so will they ban deviant tv shows and music too?
As I can understand the 1st amendment does gives us freedom, and I agree that banding the making would be against the 1st amendment. I think this cause Americans should have the right to choose what they want to play. On the other hand a tougher age limit process isn’t. Now Sometimes when you go to a movie if it has a rating that’s not right for little kids than they can't go in. You could at least make a law that says if your not a certain age an adult has to buy it. That’s pretty much the same as what a lot of you are saying. You say that the parents should decided what their kids play than creating a stricter process to keep younger kids from purchasing them would help. Personally I don’t play video games and I haven’t in a long time so I don’t know much about them.
This ban of violent or "deviant" video games has good intentions, I'll admit, but I do think it is a violation of First Amendment rights. As we know and have seen, sex and violence sells. Unfortunately, that is the type of society we're living in today. It is not, however, up to the government to decide how one may choose to be entertained, being that it is legal. The issue with putting a ban on video games is that if you banned them, then, as mentioned in the article, films, books, television and such would have to be considered also. It's sort of an all-or-nothing situation. I do see how this is a testy issue because it deals with minors. I do agree, a video game store should be fined if it sells these games to minors, but that is not going to stop a parent or older sibling from doing such. This is a parenting issue. If the parent feels that they will buy the game for their child and believe the child can play the game without imitating any of the behavior displayed, that is their decision.
I must admit that have played semi violent games before, but I played when I was of an age that I understood that killing was wrong and that I could not do what I saw, in a game, in real life. The first amendments do give us freedom of speech and expression so technically we can not place a band on them. I do feel that children under a certain age should not be allowed to play these games. When you expose children who are too immature to know, or even do, right from wrong, they may do something or try to do something just because they have seen it be done before. For example, if a child grows up in an abusive home they may go on the playground and hit another child and think it is ok. Some children can't even separate fantasies from realities yet. But I can't truly say that these games will have an negative effect on a child because I don't know the statistics. I think the parents should regulate what age or if their children should have access to violent video games. My main question is should government really be focused on this? We have so much going on in our country right now, I believe we have bigger issues to cover right now.
@ Everyone who said it should be up to the parent! I agree! If a child is under 18 then they can't go buy certain games anyway. If a parent really didn't want their child to have violent games they could prevent it by not buying the game or if the child obtain it take it away. This is something a parent can regulate.
I'd agree with the Justices that say that this decision should be no different than their decisions on other forms of graphic media. It should not be censored or regulated by the government. It clearly impedes the rights set forth in the First Amendment, and the fact that lower level government courts are not applying the law should tell you something.
What I'd like to know is, what are the people who are in favor of the censoring scared of? If the fear is an increasingly violent or disturbed generation due to the influence of these video games, that is simply preposterous. My father works specifically on the effects of video games on people, and according to his studies, video games do not correlate to increased aggression unless it is strictly competitive gameplay. Furthermore, a study by Olsen and the Harvard Group in the book Grand Theft Childhood in 2007 picked the agegroup of consumers who played the game the MOST, and they found that even after playing the video games, the rates of violence DECLINED. Meaning there is no coorelation between graphic video games and increased violence etc.
First of all, as I said in my first post, violence in video games does not desensitize the player to violence as a concept. There is no relationship between the two. Secondly, a person who plays a violent video game for 12 hours straight has an unhealthy style of living I'd agree, but this has nothing to do with the violent or graphic video game. It has everything to do with the person's preference to playing.
I think this would be a violation of the First Amendment because, it allows the government to take away a way for some people to express themselves and go blow up a building or something in the virtual world of a video game instead of doing it in the real world and paying the consequences. I believe the government should just leave this up to the parents and stop trying to be mommy and daddy for everyone. I think our parents can best decide what is what type of video games are too violent and outrageous for us. “What’s a deviant violent video game?” - Well, I don't know. You tell me!
Also, why do they care what James Madison thought about video games? It isn't like he would know what a freaking video game is, let alone a video. So where does he come in at?
@Nancy. I think that video games should be regarded serparate from non-participatory items like books, movies, etc because they require active partipation. I don't think video games should be lumped into the category "media" because of that difference between active and passive participation.
Also, I like your comment on how banning something often has the opposite effect than what the government intends.
@Mercedes. I agree that there really is no way to stop an adult from buying the game for a minor. Everything boils down to having responsible parents who should decide for themselves what they should allow their kids to watch. It's parenting, and the government shouldn't try to take over that task on top of all of the other things it's trying to do.
@Amber, i dont think thi sshould be a main focus of the government either, we have other things to worry about than video games, and i dont think video games are increasing the crime rate.
"but as long as they don't use what they do in the game during their everyday lives, they are just a form of entertainment like movies and the internet."
I agree, as long as you don't use these things you see in video games, you should be alright. But, when you said, "Grand Theft Auto", it reminded me of the time, a few years ago, when a man killed someone and said, " It was because I played Grand Theft Auto.", and made me realize some people, no matter what age, are still too stupid.
Sorry...So...Late... I feel that banning "violent" video game is completely against the 1st Amendement. The 1st amendment not only covers freedom of speech but also expression and these games are clearly a form of expression for those who created the games. Banning the games would do nothing but make the situation worse, because in reality, when u tell someone they CAN'T do something they try their best to do it without getting caught. Underground game sells would shoot through the roof. So a ban would not really work. I believe that this whole issue on the games should be placed on the parents of the children who play them. If that's what they want their child to be exposed to, then that is their right as a parent. Also, if they know that their child is foolish enough to go out and re-enact the game, then that is on them as a parent.
@ LNZ: I definitely agree. I think people can play violent video games without becoming violent. I think the key is in parenting to provide the mentality that violence isn't a logical way to solve problems.
sorry it's late mrs.matherson.. I think that a ban of these video games would be a violation of the first ammendment. The first ammendment is all about a freedom of speech for Americans and by banning this game it would be taking that freedom away. Although violent video games aren't something I prefer, I still believe the individual or the parents should use their judgement in this decision and not have the government make it for them. Regarding the question, what constitutes a deviant video game, I would say any video game that promotes violence and/or harm to anyone/anything.
@Paris-I agree with you that the parents should be held responsible. Also the fact that underground markets for this game would emerge is a good point that I hadn't thought of, the banning of this game would only result in more illegal activity.
@Alex: I agree with what you said about the government trying to play "mommy and daddy" to everyone in America by regulating a lot of things that are influential in the lives of the younger generations. The way a child should be raised should be left entirely in the hands of the parental support figures.
I can relate to Nancy that I've never been exposed nor intrested in playing violent or crude video games. My parents never encouraged or discouraged me playing them but I was brought up in a way that I just was never entertained by such subject matter. Maybe I'm wrong in saying this but it seems that there has been an increase of violent offenses commited by younger people in recent years. It's not right to blame it on video games, movies, or the media but at somepoint they do play a major role I feel. It's not that I don't love my freedoms and feel like the 1st amendment should be heavily protected but this isn't a violation I feel worthy of fighting. If my baby brothers have to wait to play crude and viciously brutal video games until they're 18 then I'm fine. If this is how we want to express ourselves with violence and inappropriate subject matter that isn't accepted in our legal system then why support it in our children's games? Also for those older gamers who play these games, it's gross that they want to spend their nights killing each other and stealing cars in videogameland rather than doing something productive. i agree with Justice Stephen G. Breyer that common sense should allow the government to help parents protect children from games that include depictions of “gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.” I doubt that our founding fathers anticipated that we'd be entertained by this subject matter. @ Nancy I love your defense of the Grimm tales. The fact fairytales are not interactive and are not self controlled senarios. You can't seek out and chop someone's head off via a fairytale.
@LNZ I totally agree!! It is up to the parents to teach the children not to use it in their everyday lives. Banning games won't prevent violence at all. Educating people will though.
@Erin regarding the video game Grand Theft Auto, I think there was a case actually where someone tried to reenact something from the game...or it may have been television. I'm not entirely sure, however, I think there were studies shown that he was already a little mentally unstable. I agree with you, you would have to be a little crazy if you couldn't seperate what happens in the video game world from reality.
"Crime did not begin with the invention of video games." I totally agree with this comment. We've had violent movies and books and so on before video games and as far as I know those were never seriously questioned to be outlawed. I don't think anything like this could ever be passed.
Lena, I agree that it would be very hard to pass a national ban on violent video games when there are so many different opinions of violent, or inappropriate.
I agree with the judge to say that this decision should not be different from the decisions of other graphic materials, which should be no censorship or control by the government. This prevents a clear definition of rights, first corrected, and the fact that the court should use the law to say something.
What I want to know is what are the people who are in favor of censorship, fearing? If the fear is always violent or disturbed by way of the production of a video game, does that make it? I personally feel that violent video games are completely useless and more harmful than helpful, but that's America. It's whatever the majority wants, and in this case it's violent and graphic entertainment.
@ Andrew
WAYD!!!
You and I both know very well that nothing your father has done research on or ever published can be given credit at all. I mean he was a wrestler/fiction writer for thirty years. You've got to do better than that to up hold your arguments. I'm very dissapoint.
Also I would like to argue that even though video games may not make the players more violent, there's no doubt that since the birth of modern graphic and violent video games, there has been a much wider reception of violence and other graphic subjects by the specific audience of the game players. They're just too socially inept to get into an actual violent situation.
Sorry for being so late getting these graded. The majority of you have done an excellent job in responding to the prompt. You have made many good points. Just a few things I would like to expand on.
1) Many want to put the responsibility back on parents. While it is a noble idea, it would be hardpressed to mandate. The largest problem is that parents simply do not parent.
2) Tipper Gore is the reason there are ratings on CDs and Video Games now. She took on the industry back the 1990s and won for the system.
3) The real life "Grand Theft Auto" incident some of you touched on was in Walker County. Devin Thompson walked in to the police station and shot two police officers and a dispatcher. He remarked, when arrested, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime." I can remember this well, because the next day at school when the story appeared in the Tuscaloosa News along with his picture I had several students, mostly girls, who felt sorry for him and thought he was too cute to get in so much trouble.
I want to begin by saying that I have never played violent video games, or any video games for that matter, so my knowledge on their graphic scope and residual effects are limited.
ReplyDeleteI would want to have more details on the effects of violent video games on young children before I could really commit to one side, but my gut reaction is one of disgust at the idea of children playing games that "include...torturing violence upon small children and women.”
In the article, one of the opponents of the ban on video games likened the games to some of Grimm’s fairy tales. He argues that Grimm’s tales are violent too, but no one is looking to ban them. His point, though, does not consider several things. Grimm’s fairy tales are written works of fiction and are in no way interactive. You can read the stories over and over again, but in a video game, you control the scenario. You make the decisions that will lead to violence. In fact, you are rewarded for it. Movies are not nearly as interactive as video games, and even they have ratings at the theatre to deter young children from wandering into a movie far too mature for their viewing. There is no doubt that children should be limited in their exposure to violent video games. But is it the government’s job to enforce such a law? It’s a difficult issue.
The government does regulate depictions of sex, but is unsure if they should extend this ban to violence. I think that initiating the ban would be an encroachment on freedom of speech, but I still do believe that parents should be responsible enough to keep things like “Mortal Kombat” from their children. Young children would not have the opportunity to buy such video games without the consent of their parents regardless of the law, and teenagers of 16 and 17 that are able to buy the video game due to more independence are probably old enough to make the decision for themselves anyway. By opening the floor up to debate on what is too violent or not, the government is definitely overstepping their boundaries laid out by the 1st Amendment. Overregulation is almost never the answer for problems such as these, because it creates a stigma that makes whatever the banned thing is more interesting than it needs to be. Prime example: our highly inflated drinking age and America’s notorious problem with binge drinking.
The First Amendment is very important, but I don’t think it’s a big deal to censor things as long as the punishment isn’t death, physical harm, or incarceration, as long as the censored items are listed somewhere and not stricken from every database everywhere, and as long as there is a fair number of diverse people in agreement of what is to be censored. People get extremely protective of their right to free speech, and it’s not without just cause. I think that it’s perfectly healthy to contend over how much a government is censoring something – the absence of the arguing would be a symptom of the type of apathy that allows totalitarianism. So, there is no real answer to whether or not censoring video games is a violation of free speech – it is and isn’t a violation conditional to each game being censored.
ReplyDeleteAs far as video games go, if the Supreme Court were to be against the video games, they should go all out and keep companies from developing and marketing “deviant violent video games.” It sounds like common sense, but, more people buy the violent games when they are high quality, marketed, and available at most game retailers – all of these are greatly diminished if major gaming industries don’t make the games in the first place. I don’t see how the government could ever have the resources to prevent the sale of games to minors alone.
And as far as these philosophical questions the judges pose, I will do my best to address them. I’m not sure if I’m addressing the right questions though…
1-Create a panel of perfect moderate Americans and make them preview every single game distributed by the industries and decide whether or not it is a “deviant violent video game” or is a “normal violent video game.” Haha, yeah, never mind, that’s stupid. But seriously, there isn’t a list of very specific items to go by that can be used to reference as to what’s “too much,” what’s “fine,” and what’s “acceptable, albeit distasteful.” If these censorships are to rule the American people, maybe the government should consider taking frequent polls with short previews of each game being considered to decide what should and should not be restricted.
2-I’ve never played Grimm’s Fairy Tales. If it’s a question of deciding what games are over-the-top, refer to the question above.
3- I think a large panel of psychologists should be consulted about how video games are different from other mediums about which Justices assign some low value. I personally think that video games should be considered differently than books, movies, and music because video games assign a cause/effect and action/reward to the consumer. The reward factor for violence has psychological impact on a person’s decision making process. It’s like mental conditioning. Of course, there’s nothing to say that mature people can’t handle these games, but I would think that more mature people probably would have better things to do than play the games long enough for them to make major impacts on their thinking anyways. In shorter words: I think those who are more immature are also those who would play violent video games the most.
So yeah…heated debate should be occurring over this subject by those who decide censorship. I think the true breach of Freedom of Speech would be having a be-all and end-all law for this. I’m not sure if I’m using this correctly, but I think this could be called a quandary – the only right course of action would be to argue indefinitely over the right course of action.
The first amendment protects everything from freedom of speech, to freedom of expression. I think the ban is against the first Amendment rights because, our founding fathers made it clear that they wanted Americans to have complete freedom when choosing how to live their life. Kids that want violent video games will find a way to buy them, even if its through an older brother or 18 year old friend. Children and teens will not be effected by video games. Most kids that play violent video games turn out like everyone else. Video games are getting more and more violent but that is actually an increase in the market. If you hold these back this leads to more and more people losing jobs.
ReplyDelete“What’s a deviant violent video game?”
-I rerally don't think that there can be a real definition for this because video games these days have some type of violence or sexual content in them.
Jessica:
ReplyDeleteLove your point about how the only right course of action if to argue infinitely over the right course of action. I kind of think that is what our country's gov't does. But how realistic is that? And though I personally hate video games and do not see the appeal, I still wonder: if violent video games were preempted (or preempted on a case by case basis), what would stop the gov't from having just cause to put restrictions on books like Fight Club? Or movies like There Will Be Blood (or something more violent than this...nothing immediately springs to mind.) Is a ban the proper solution to the problem?
I think that the ban is against the first amendment. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, the freedom of press, etc. It basically gives us the freedom to do what we want and live our lives however we desire. I have played games like this before with my cousins and friends and I'm not very favorable of them. And I know from experience that kids will find anyway to get these games. When people think of violent video games, they think that they are inspiring violence to younger kids. That is somewhat true! About three two years ago a young man went on a killing spree, in consideration of the game Grand Auto Theft. But just because he did that doesn't mean it will happen to everyone else.But hypothetically we have to think about the safety of everyone else. It seems like most of these games have profanity, sexual content, some sort of violence,etc. So maybe the Supreme Court should ban it!
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying I've had my share of violent video games. Nothing crazy sad and violent, but Mortal Combat and shoot em' up games for sure. I think that this really boils down to parenting and the individual. I can see how if a young, aware, child was exposed to these games, how it may affect there attitudes toward violence. How it could desensitize a child from violence. Is it the governments job to decide whats just violent and whats too violent? Is it the governments place at all? I'm not sure a ban is the right course of action. I agree that children may be better off if they aren't exposed to these video violence.
ReplyDeleteIs it the governments place or the parents place? I feel that its the parents place to regulate what their kids watch and play. The government has bigger fish to fry in my opinion. This being said, I want to make it clear that I don't support the guy thats playing violent video games right now and has been for the last 12 hours, he's been consumed by them, thats his life. This behavior can't be healthy for one.
Though I don’t agree with the idea of letting kids play these types of violent video games, I don’t think it would be possible to place a ban on violent video games without also placing one on violent movies, TV shows, books, comics, ect., because in my opinion, it all falls under the same type of entertainment. Nationally, I don’t think anything like this would ever be passed. However, on a state level, I think it would be easier. Generally though, I think this type of issue has can only be handled by the parents.
ReplyDelete“What’s a deviant violent video game?” I think is a very important question because, someone will have to create a set of standards for this type of restriction. This could be a some what impossible task due to the fact that so many people have such varying opinions on the matter and finding a compromise would be difficult.
Justice Steven G. Breyer said that common sense should allow the government to help parents protect their children. But this is exactly what the public doesn’t want. It seems that right now most people don’t want the government telling what they can and can’t do and how they should be raising their children. Personally, I think any good parent has enough common sense to know that these types of games aren’t good for their children.
First of all I think that it is silly that this issue even went to the Supreme Court. Of course it is a violation of the the first amendment. We have the right to say express ourselves however we want and that applies to violent video games as well. Whether or not parents allow their children to play them is a different story. Regarding the questions (and I hope I am answering all of them) I think that a deviant violent video game would be something that promotes criminal behavior or violent actions. People are going to behave in violent ways with or without these video games. Crime did not begin with the invention of video games. Justice Sotomayor made a good point about how we decide which category of speech has low value. All forms of speech are granted to us as citizens of the United States. I think that this issue leads back to parenting. If they do their job right then the values that these games promote will not have a big effect on them.
ReplyDeleteLena- I agree with your point about parenting. I think that it all leads back to that.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that putting an age limit on video games is a violation of the first amendment. I think that trying to ban the creation of these video games would violate the freedom of expression. Ultimately I think it is up the parents to decide what their kids are exposed to and I don't think any parent would want to be told how to raise their kids by the government. However I do think that there is an age when you are too young to be playing a video game where you are controling a character that is shooting and killing people. I think there is a reason why they say that some video games are rated for mature audiences only.
ReplyDeleteJustice Antonin Scalia made a good point when he said “What’s a deviant violent video game?”. I think there would have to be a specific set of characteristics in order to decide what makes a deviant violent video game. Different people are going to have different opinions on what is too gory or too violent for their kid and it would be impossible to regulate what kind of video game a kid can and cannot play. Again I think it should be up to the parent or guardian to decide. Video games are not the only medium that portrays extremely offensive material, it can be found in movies, T.V. shows, comic books and magazines. So even if they did find a way to control it, they are going to end up seeing it some where else.
Well, I personally have not played violent video games. But I have heard about the violence in them. I also feel that violence towards children and women is just horrible for children to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. But The issue is whether or not the parent should let their children play these violent video games? Justice Scalia asked "What's a deviant violent video game? As opposed to what? a normal video game?" I think she made a good point. Who is the judge of whether a video is violent or not and to what degree of violence? I think that the parents of the children should determine whether their child should play violent games and which ones. Some kids are more mature and more "aware" than others. Some kids know right from wrong better than others. It all depends on the children and parents in my opinion. My question is, what happened to video game ratings???
@Mona- I agree with how you think that there would have to be a specific set of characteristics in order to decide what makes a deviant violent video game. In my opinion, it'll be hard to make a set of characteristics. Different people's views on violence for their children may be different.
ReplyDeleteOkay, in my opinion I feel as if there is NO WAY the government can actually ban children from playing violent games. They could, but it would be a waste of time and money. This is also a violation of our First Amendment rights. The government does not have the authority to control what Americans watch or play. This is just like having to be 18 to purchase porn. Obviously that doesnt work. The government keeps trying to dictate how we live our everyday lives and it's just not going to work. Children are going to find ways to play these games, and for some it might not even be that hard, all they have to do is get their parents or older sibling to buy it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a parental decision, not a governmental decision.I've played many different types of games and none of them effected me in anyway. So I think it depends on the child and their mindset.
The ban does go against the First Amendments reasoning. We all have the right to certain privileges as obtained from this amendment. I agree that parents should be the ones to regulate whether or not their children are allowed to play these types of video games. It should be left up to them to decide. Now, I don't necessarily condone younger children playing though.
ReplyDeleteA "deviant violent The ban does go against the First Amendments reasoning. We all have the right to certain privileges as obtained from this amendment. I agree that parents should be the ones to regulate whether or not their children are allowed to play these types of . It should be left up to them to decide. Now, I don't necessarily condone younger children playing though.
A "deviant violent video game"- It's just the same as the epidemic that happened with Rockstar's line of Grand Theft Auto games. People were questioning whether it would pass a negative influence on to the players of the and in turn cause them to imitate scenes and actions from the games. I think that a person crazy enough to reenact activities such as the ones depicted, had every intention to do so beforehand.
Like I said, it just all goes back to the morals a parent holds for raising their children. If they allow them, it's their decision.
This issue should be left up to the parent in my opinion. I see it as a more personal thing. My parents didnt want me playing violent games growing up, so they didn't allow me to, until they felt I could handle it. There should be no law interfering with buying certain games. I say just let a parent use their judgement based on their child. Also I feel the law would violate the 1st Amendment rights in a way. I see how they are trying to protect our citizens, but it's a bit overboard. I say we trust the parents out there.
ReplyDelete@Amani I agree that there is no real clear definition of a deviant violent game.
ReplyDelete@Ben we have to purchase and play this game!!!
I totally believe that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment basically gives us the freedom and right to live our lives as horrible or great as we would please. I also feel that a "deviant" video game is dependent upon the definition of violence to the individual. My definition of too violent may be completely normal to someone else. Personally I love video games. I play Call of Duty and Halo on a regular basis and have since I was younger, and I'm not a serial killer nor do I behave demonically. There's nothing wrong with playin violent video games. The real potential problem is when you are first exposed to them and how long you play them. Of coarse if you let your 3 or 4 year old child start playing Mortal Combat when you haven't properly taught them that it's just a game and all the other important values to come with it, their going to behave in a deviant and irregular way. Like Ben stated, it is also an issue when you do nothing but sit on your bottom and play games like that for hours at a time. This relies heavliy on the parents and their method of raising their child. I dont think it is the government's responsibility to control what and how much of these type games kids and teens can play. The government can try to regulate this issue but the chances of it being effective are slim to none.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the ban would be a big violation of the first amend. I, a long time video game fan can say from experience hat video games grow more and more violent every year. The envelope for more blood and exposure in video games is pushed to an extreme level with ach passing year. I also can infer form my experience though that those games have not caused my mind to be obstructed in any negative way form or fashion because in the end most people have to just realize it's entertainment...a game.
ReplyDelete@Mike I agree this issue should be left up to the parents to decide on in the long run
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government shouldn't have any jurisdiction when it comes to the entertainment American citizens chose for themselves or their children. Banning violent video games is a violation of the first amendment and is getting very close to censorship. Video games already have a rating system in place, and you can not buy a mature rated game unless you meet the age requirements anyway, so as far as i'm concerned the government has done all they need to to control them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a problem if little children are playing violent games, but that falls directly on their parents. This whole issue shouldn't be about the government, it should be about making parents accountable for what they expose their children to. But as it stands today there is a double standard, a family can take children to see an R rated movie and nobody will say a thing, but if some 5 year old plays a violent game then it goes to the courts. The bottom line is that this is a parenting issue and nothing else.
@Ben i agree, entertainment is just entertainment, it is up to individuals to take something negative from it.
ReplyDeleteLike my other classmates have stated, its interfering with the freedom of speech. Personally I don't think that the government should have any say so on banning deviant videos games. Even though you have to be 18 or older to by certain video games, parents still have the right to go and get whatever game they feel they want their children to have whether its deviant or not. I also don't think that a video game has a personal effect on anyone. People have a mind of their own, some people use theirs wisely and others choose not too, so i don't feel that its the video games. My question is that not only video games contains violent actions but tv stations and also music, so will they ban deviant tv shows and music too?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I can understand the 1st amendment does gives us freedom, and I agree that banding the making would be against the 1st amendment. I think this cause Americans should have the right to choose what they want to play. On the other hand a tougher age limit process isn’t. Now Sometimes when you go to a movie if it has a rating that’s not right for little kids than they can't go in. You could at least make a law that says if your not a certain age an adult has to buy it. That’s pretty much the same as what a lot of you are saying. You say that the parents should decided what their kids play than creating a stricter process to keep younger kids from purchasing them would help. Personally I don’t play video games and I haven’t in a long time so I don’t know much about them.
ReplyDelete@ Ben : its easy for me and you to say it doesn't affect use cause we know its just a game, but you have people who just don't get that concept.
ReplyDeleteThis ban of violent or "deviant" video games has good intentions, I'll admit, but I do think it is a violation of First Amendment rights. As we know and have seen, sex and violence sells. Unfortunately, that is the type of society we're living in today. It is not, however, up to the government to decide how one may choose to be entertained, being that it is legal. The issue with putting a ban on video games is that if you banned them, then, as mentioned in the article, films, books, television and such would have to be considered also. It's sort of an all-or-nothing situation.
ReplyDeleteI do see how this is a testy issue because it deals with minors. I do agree, a video game store should be fined if it sells these games to minors, but that is not going to stop a parent or older sibling from doing such. This is a parenting issue. If the parent feels that they will buy the game for their child and believe the child can play the game without imitating any of the behavior displayed, that is their decision.
I must admit that have played semi violent games before, but I played when I was of an age that I understood that killing was wrong and that I could not do what I saw, in a game, in real life. The first amendments do give us freedom of speech and expression so technically we can not place a band on them. I do feel that children under a certain age should not be allowed to play these games. When you expose children who are too immature to know, or even do, right from wrong, they may do something or try to do something just because they have seen it be done before. For example, if a child grows up in an abusive home they may go on the playground and hit another child and think it is ok. Some children can't even separate fantasies from realities yet. But I can't truly say that these games will have an negative effect on a child because I don't know the statistics. I think the parents should regulate what age or if their children should have access to violent video games. My main question is should government really be focused on this? We have so much going on in our country right now, I believe we have bigger issues to cover right now.
ReplyDelete@ Everyone who said it should be up to the parent!
ReplyDeleteI agree! If a child is under 18 then they can't go buy certain games anyway. If a parent really didn't want their child to have violent games they could prevent it by not buying the game or if the child obtain it take it away. This is something a parent can regulate.
I'd agree with the Justices that say that this decision should be no different than their decisions on other forms of graphic media. It should not be censored or regulated by the government. It clearly impedes the rights set forth in the First Amendment, and the fact that lower level government courts are not applying the law should tell you something.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to know is, what are the people who are in favor of the censoring scared of? If the fear is an increasingly violent or disturbed generation due to the influence of these video games, that is simply preposterous. My father works specifically on the effects of video games on people, and according to his studies, video games do not correlate to increased aggression unless it is strictly competitive gameplay. Furthermore, a study by Olsen and the Harvard Group in the book Grand Theft Childhood in 2007 picked the agegroup of consumers who played the game the MOST, and they found that even after playing the video games, the rates of violence DECLINED. Meaning there is no coorelation between graphic video games and increased violence etc.
@ Ben
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, as I said in my first post, violence in video games does not desensitize the player to violence as a concept. There is no relationship between the two. Secondly, a person who plays a violent video game for 12 hours straight has an unhealthy style of living I'd agree, but this has nothing to do with the violent or graphic video game. It has everything to do with the person's preference to playing.
I think this would be a violation of the First Amendment because, it allows the government to take away a way for some people to express themselves and go blow up a building or something in the virtual world of a video game instead of doing it in the real world and paying the consequences. I believe the government should just leave this up to the parents and stop trying to be mommy and daddy for everyone. I think our parents can best decide what is what type of video games are too violent and outrageous for us.
ReplyDelete“What’s a deviant violent video game?”
- Well, I don't know. You tell me!
Also, why do they care what James Madison thought about video games? It isn't like he would know what a freaking video game is, let alone a video. So where does he come in at?
@Nancy. I think that video games should be regarded serparate from non-participatory items like books, movies, etc because they require active partipation. I don't think video games should be lumped into the category "media" because of that difference between active and passive participation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like your comment on how banning something often has the opposite effect than what the government intends.
@Mercedes. I agree that there really is no way to stop an adult from buying the game for a minor. Everything boils down to having responsible parents who should decide for themselves what they should allow their kids to watch. It's parenting, and the government shouldn't try to take over that task on top of all of the other things it's trying to do.
ReplyDelete@Amber, i dont think thi sshould be a main focus of the government either, we have other things to worry about than video games, and i dont think video games are increasing the crime rate.
ReplyDelete@ LNZ
ReplyDelete"but as long as they don't use what they do in the game during their everyday lives, they are just a form of entertainment like movies and the internet."
I agree, as long as you don't use these things you see in video games, you should be alright.
But, when you said, "Grand Theft Auto", it reminded me of the time, a few years ago, when a man killed someone and said, " It was because I played Grand Theft Auto.", and made me realize some people, no matter what age, are still too stupid.
Sorry...So...Late...
ReplyDeleteI feel that banning "violent" video game is completely against the 1st Amendement. The 1st amendment not only covers freedom of speech but also expression and these games are clearly a form of expression for those who created the games. Banning the games would do nothing but make the situation worse, because in reality, when u tell someone they CAN'T do something they try their best to do it without getting caught. Underground game sells would shoot through the roof. So a ban would not really work. I believe that this whole issue on the games should be placed on the parents of the children who play them. If that's what they want their child to be exposed to, then that is their right as a parent. Also, if they know that their child is foolish enough to go out and re-enact the game, then that is on them as a parent.
@ Nancy: you should play violent video games.
ReplyDelete@ LNZ: I definitely agree. I think people can play violent video games without becoming violent. I think the key is in parenting to provide the mentality that violence isn't a logical way to solve problems.
sorry it's late mrs.matherson..
ReplyDeleteI think that a ban of these video games would be a violation of the first ammendment. The first ammendment is all about a freedom of speech for Americans and by banning this game it would be taking that freedom away. Although violent video games aren't something I prefer, I still believe the individual or the parents should use their judgement in this decision and not have the government make it for them. Regarding the question, what constitutes a deviant video game, I would say any video game that promotes violence and/or harm to anyone/anything.
@Paris-I agree with you that the parents should be held responsible. Also the fact that underground markets for this game would emerge is a good point that I hadn't thought of, the banning of this game would only result in more illegal activity.
@Alex: I agree with what you said about the government trying to play "mommy and daddy" to everyone in America by regulating a lot of things that are influential in the lives of the younger generations. The way a child should be raised should be left entirely in the hands of the parental support figures.
ReplyDelete@paris: I totally agree that banning it is against the first amendment
ReplyDeleteI can relate to Nancy that I've never been exposed nor intrested in playing violent or crude video games. My parents never encouraged or discouraged me playing them but I was brought up in a way that I just was never entertained by such subject matter. Maybe I'm wrong in saying this but it seems that there has been an increase of violent offenses commited by younger people in recent years. It's not right to blame it on video games, movies, or the media but at somepoint they do play a major role I feel. It's not that I don't love my freedoms and feel like the 1st amendment should be heavily protected but this isn't a violation I feel worthy of fighting. If my baby brothers have to wait to play crude and viciously brutal video games until they're 18 then I'm fine. If this is how we want to express ourselves with violence and inappropriate subject matter that isn't accepted in our legal system then why support it in our children's games? Also for those older gamers who play these games, it's gross that they want to spend their nights killing each other and stealing cars in videogameland rather than doing something productive. i agree with Justice Stephen G. Breyer that common sense should allow the government to help parents protect children from games that include depictions of “gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.” I doubt that our founding fathers anticipated that we'd be entertained by this subject matter.
ReplyDelete@ Nancy
I love your defense of the Grimm tales. The fact fairytales are not interactive and are not self controlled senarios. You can't seek out and chop someone's head off via a fairytale.
@LNZ I totally agree!! It is up to the parents to teach the children not to use it in their everyday lives. Banning games won't prevent violence at all. Educating people will though.
ReplyDelete@Erin regarding the video game Grand Theft Auto, I think there was a case actually where someone tried to reenact something from the game...or it may have been television. I'm not entirely sure, however, I think there were studies shown that he was already a little mentally unstable. I agree with you, you would have to be a little crazy if you couldn't seperate what happens in the video game world from reality.
ReplyDelete@ Megan
ReplyDelete"Crime did not begin with the invention of video games." I totally agree with this comment. We've had violent movies and books and so on before video games and as far as I know those were never seriously questioned to be outlawed. I don't think anything like this could ever be passed.
Lena, I agree that it would be very hard to pass a national ban on violent video games when there are so many different opinions of violent, or inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the judge to say that this decision should not be different from the decisions of other graphic materials, which should be no censorship or control by the government. This prevents a clear definition of rights, first corrected, and the fact that the court should use the law to say something.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to know is what are the people who are in favor of censorship, fearing? If the fear is always violent or disturbed by way of the production of a video game, does that make it? I personally feel that violent video games are completely useless and more harmful than helpful, but that's America. It's whatever the majority wants, and in this case it's violent and graphic entertainment.
@ Andrew
WAYD!!!
You and I both know very well that nothing your father has done research on or ever published can be given credit at all. I mean he was a wrestler/fiction writer for thirty years. You've got to do better than that to up hold your arguments. I'm very dissapoint.
Also I would like to argue that even though video games may not make the players more violent, there's no doubt that since the birth of modern graphic and violent video games, there has been a much wider reception of violence and other graphic subjects by the specific audience of the game players. They're just too socially inept to get into an actual violent situation.
Sorry for being so late getting these graded. The majority of you have done an excellent job in responding to the prompt. You have made many good points. Just a few things I would like to expand on.
ReplyDelete1) Many want to put the responsibility back on parents. While it is a noble idea, it would be hardpressed to mandate. The largest problem is that parents simply do not parent.
2) Tipper Gore is the reason there are ratings on CDs and Video Games now. She took on the industry back the 1990s and won for the system.
3) The real life "Grand Theft Auto" incident some of you touched on was in Walker County. Devin Thompson walked in to the police station and shot two police officers and a dispatcher. He remarked, when arrested, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime." I can remember this well, because the next day at school when the story appeared in the Tuscaloosa News along with his picture I had several students, mostly girls, who felt sorry for him and thought he was too cute to get in so much trouble.