Did you know there was a ban on the distribution of violent video games to children under 18 years old? The Supreme Court overturned this in a 7 to 2 decision in favor of allowing the sale of these games to minors. The Court decided such a ban violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech. The California ban was trying to protect children from harm. The games had very graphic ideas like killing, maiming, and sexually assaulting others. These are all acts against the law in real life, but can be done without punishment in a virtual world. First person shooter games, like Call of Duty and Gears of War copy military action. In those games players just kill and kill. In one game there is a chain saw attached to a gun where the gamer can grossly kill many characters at one time. In Grand Theft Auto, the game player practices stealing cars and evading the police.
My little cousin at two years old could beat my older cousins on these death games. It was a really bad influence on him. I couldn’t believe how it would change his mind, just killing everyone. Some kids I go to school with play these games all the time and I can see the personality change in them. They lose their tempers over the littlest things. I can call that a real effect of these video games.
The Supreme Court did the wrong thing in declaring this ban unconstitutional. There are many kinds of media like TV shows, movies and magazines that should only be available to people over 18 years old. Kids whose minds are still growing should not have open access to anything they want.
But I can see how the public is addicted to these games, so they didn’t want the ban. They fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. People were relieved and happy when the ban was lifted. My momma still won’t be buying them for me.
Resource: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/jan-june11/videogameruling_06-28.html
Resource: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/jan-june11/videogameruling_06-28.html
Jareb Blackford post an issue, on US Government 2305, about the Supreme Court ruling to not ban video games. His statement reflect the views on many Americans, violence video games should be removed from our children and that it is not a violation of our first amendment according to to the supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteVideo games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors.Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy. and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals.Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games
The Supreme Court overturned this in a 7 to 2 decision in favor of allowing the sale of these games to minors. The Court decided such a ban violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech. The California ban was trying to protect children from harm. The games had very graphic ideas like killing, maiming, and sexually assaulting others.
I thought the Freedom of speech was the wish to speak freely without censorship but it has limitations suck as obscenity and incitement to commit a crime. But I think it is up to the parents whether or not they should buy video games for their children. But like Jareb Blackford, "My momma still won’t be buying them for me. "
Violence is nothing new. When I read Jared Blackford's post on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a law banning the sale of violent videos to children under 18, I couldn't help but think that the justices knew waht they were saying. It's very easy to take the Jared's position on this subject and "protect the children" is an excellent flag to rally around, but does the virtual world really have a bearing on reality? He claims that because of video games, kids "lose their temper over the littlest thing", but there are other factors to consider when remarking on a population's personality change. A great number of social scientists have noticed that narcissism has been on the rise in America, a trait associate with short tempers due to a feeling of entitlement which is not satisfied as often as narcissistic believe. The fact is, we aren't all behavioral psychologists, and while it might seem intuitive to link violent video games to violence, there isn't one. While pathos based arguments like Jared's "I coulden't believe how it could change his mind, just killing everyone" might sound convincing at first, people like Texas A&M professor Christopher Ferguson have been been conducting research proving that there isn't any link between video games and violence. It just seems wrong to me to treat this as an ethical debate to be discussed with anecdotes when there are specialists in the subjects giving us empirical evidence to help form our opinions.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, from a constitutional standpoint, video games deserve the first amendment protections as any other form of media, and just like movies already have systems in place to prevent children from accessing mature content. Ultimately it is up to parents to decide what their kids should be able to play with, and as someone who grew up with violent video games and has neither a temper nor intentions on killing anything, I say: keep it that way
links:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/narcissism-is-on-the-rise-in-america.html
http://www.tamiu.edu/newsinfo/3-27-08/article13.shtml
I appreciated Jareb Blackford implementation of 1st hand experience in his argument against the selling of violent video games. However I respectfully disagree, some of my earliest memories have been about playing video games and I am a committed pacifist. However in sharp contrast to my pacifism, I play an array of violent video games such as the new Mortal Kombat (a game noted for its extreme violence). In my opinion violent video games are a convenient scapegoat for people to blame terrible acts of violence on, which does not address the real issue. This accusation has happened with every new form of media from music, to movies, to even comic books, and now its just video games turn to be picked on. I respect the supreme court's decision to recognize violent video games protection under the first amendment, I would hate to see the day the first amendment turn into a medium-specific form of protection. Even putting aside the first amendment argument I can not see good reason for a law like this to be passed. As video games have become more popular in the U.S., violent crime has decreased dramatically, particularly among youth. Now who knows maybe if violent video games were not around violent crimes would have decreased even more, but I doubt it. In a four part series on rampage killings, the New York Times examined the influence of media on offenders' actions and found: "While the killings have caused many people to point to the violent aspects of the culture, a closer look shows little evidence that video games, movies or television encouraged many of the attacks." This allows me to conclude that if this law passed we would just be chipping away at our rights for no real reason.
ReplyDeletesources: http://www.theeca.com/video_games_violence