Violent Video Games and the Rights of Parents
July 1, 2011
Charles J. Chaput
Twelve years have passed, but very few Coloradans have forgotten the name of Columbine High School. I spent the days after the April 20, 1999, Columbine school massacre with my brother priests, burying the dead, visiting the families of victims and trying to make sense of the violence to the wider community. On May 4 that year I spoke to a special session of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee’s focus was “marketing violence to children.” Among my comments were these:
The reasonable person understands that what we eat, drink, and breathe will make us healthy or sick. In like manner, what we hear and what we see lifts us up — or drags us down. It forms us inside. Pornography degrades women. It also coarsens men. I don't need to prove that because we all know it. It's common sense . . . The roots of violence in our culture are much more complicated than just bad rock lyrics or brutal screenplays . . . But common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere, and it goes straight into the hearts of our children to bear fruit in ways we can't imagine — until something like [Columbine] happens.
I recalled those words as I read Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27 decision, Brown v EMA striking down a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Scalia, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor grants that certain categories of expression—obscenity, incitement, and fighting words—are excluded from First Amendment protection. But because violent video games fall outside these narrow categories, they cannot be banned.
Scalia is a skilled, persuasive thinker. Given the country’s bizarre political climate wherein certain kinds of religious teaching are now attacked as hate speech, Catholics might be grateful to the Court for reaffirming limits on what lawmakers can and cannot ban. But Justice Scalia dismisses the differing views on the Court too quickly. Those views have weight. They deserve attention.
Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, issued a separate Brown opinion. It’s worth reading. Alito agrees with the Court in overturning the California law on the much narrower ground that the law’s definition of violent video games is “impermissibly vague.” But he argues—I think convincingly—that the impact of playing violent video games may be different in kind from “reading a description of violence in a work of literature . . . listening to the radio or watching a movie or a television show.” Video games can simulate, and potentially stimulate, violence in a far more intensely immersive way than traditional media. In the words of former army officer and author of On Killing, David Grossman, the worst of these games are “murder simulators.” Grossman is not alone in his views.
Thus, for Justice Alito, the Court makes a serious mistake in too quickly lumping violent video games under the same protections given Grimm’s Fairy Tales or network TV. In the Alito-Roberts view, the Court should not act prematurely in blocking efforts to deal with what some (in fact, many) people believe to be “a significant and developing social problem.”
My point here is not that video games are bad. My point is that when we too readily stretch an individual’s right to free speech to include a corporation’s right to sell violence to minors, we collude in poisoning our own future—and tragedies like Columbine are the indirect but brutally real proof of what I mean. We also undermine the intent of our nation’s own Founders and Framers. Justice Scalia describes himself as an “originalist” in his constitutional thinking. But in Brown, Justice Clarence Thomas seems far closer to the original intent of the Framers in his dissenting opinion.
Thomas argues that “the practices and beliefs of the [nation’s] founding generation establish that ‘the freedom of speech,’ as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.” For Thomas, “history clearly shows a founding generation that believed parents to have complete authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the development of those children . . . In light of this history, the Framers could not possibly have understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include an unqualified right to speak to minors”—or, by extension, to sell them murder simulators.
Thomas also notes that the Court itself has admitted that some legitimate exclusions from First Amendment protection may exist that have not yet been dealt with in the Court’s case law. Parents’ authority over the messaging to their minor children, for Thomas, is just such a First Amendment exception.
In practice, Brown extends and elevates the individual’s right to free expression—or in this case, a corporation’s right to make a healthy profit—at the expense of family sovereignty, the natural rights of parents and the intent of the Constitution’s authors. It doesn’t matter whether California lawmakers were thinking high and noble thoughts about the family or not. For Thomas, they were doing their job in a constitutionally appropriate way. In the end, Justice Thomas’ reasoning is well grounded in historical precedent. His opinion seems far closer to the intent of the founding generation than the views of the Court majority. Coincidentally, it is also much closer to the Christian understanding of natural law and natural rights.
Brown is now a matter of record. But it’s an occasion to remember Aquinas’ principle that good laws help to make us good. All law serves—or should serve—the dual purpose of protecting the dignity of the human person and advancing the common good. Law should support us as we struggle to fulfill our human vocations. A law which respects mothers and fathers trying to make good choices for their family does just that.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop of Denver.
RESOURCES
Brown, Governor of California, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association et al. [PDF]
Gregory K. Laughlin, Wrong Today, Perhaps Right Tomorrow
Robert T. Miller, “In Defense of Disgusting Speech”
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.1.2011 | 10:20am
David Nickol says:
Didn’t we go through this with comic books in the 1950s?
I really don't think anyone, let alone the Supreme Court, should be convinced by arguments that run, “The reasonable person understands . . . I don’t need to prove that because we all know it. It’s common sense . . . ”
Here is the kind of evidence that was presented to the court:
**********
One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.
**********
If it is so obvious that video games have deleterious effects on young people, there ought to be some halfway persuasive research to demonstrate what they are. Also, someone is going to have to explain why, if “common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere,” the rate of violent crime is at a 40-year low.
I really don't think anyone, let alone the Supreme Court, should be convinced by arguments that run, “The reasonable person understands . . . I don’t need to prove that because we all know it. It’s common sense . . . ”
Here is the kind of evidence that was presented to the court:
**********
One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.
**********
If it is so obvious that video games have deleterious effects on young people, there ought to be some halfway persuasive research to demonstrate what they are. Also, someone is going to have to explain why, if “common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere,” the rate of violent crime is at a 40-year low.
7.1.2011 | 10:32am
Smm says:
@David: I'm sure that statistic, if it holds up, would be comforting to Columbine and similarly bereft families.
7.1.2011 | 10:45am
S.L. Hersey says:
Smm, I don't know whether that statistic is accurate or not. If it IS, though, and if the argument it supports turns out to be true, then the feelings of Columbine-area families are irrelevant.
7.1.2011 | 10:54am
David Nickol says:
Smm,
It is perfectly understandable in the aftermath of a tragedy like Columbine that people look for some reason or cause to make at least some sense out of what happened. But that doesn't mean they are right. We see a similar phenomenon with parents whose children turn out to be autistic and want to believe vaccination was the cause. But it would be mistaken to base social policy on these kinds of emotional reactions. There is no proof that the Columbine killers were in any way motivated by playing violent video games, and in fact there are theories that they became aggressive in the real world because video games were taken away from them.
Is convincing evidence too much to ask for, particularly in arguments before the Supreme Court?
It is perfectly understandable in the aftermath of a tragedy like Columbine that people look for some reason or cause to make at least some sense out of what happened. But that doesn't mean they are right. We see a similar phenomenon with parents whose children turn out to be autistic and want to believe vaccination was the cause. But it would be mistaken to base social policy on these kinds of emotional reactions. There is no proof that the Columbine killers were in any way motivated by playing violent video games, and in fact there are theories that they became aggressive in the real world because video games were taken away from them.
Is convincing evidence too much to ask for, particularly in arguments before the Supreme Court?
7.1.2011 | 11:09am
David Nickol says:
From The New York Times, May 23, 2011:
Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts
The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.
In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html
Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts
The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.
In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html
7.1.2011 | 11:22am
Ben says:
I think David Nickol hits the nail on the head here. I would also add that, if parents don't want their children playing violent video games, then doesn't it make more sense to, you know, just not buy said video games for their children? As far as I can see, this case has less to do with giving minors access to violent video games (the vast majority of which, by the way, are not best described as "murder simulators") and more to do with restricting the state's attempts to act in loco parentis.
7.1.2011 | 11:42am
JDD says:
Common sense tells us that the human person, upon entering the world, is formed in their conscience and their tolerance to certain actions by means of input through their five senses.
If I'm brought up on Cajun cooking from a very young age, then I will have a tolerance to spicy food. If I'm brought up on a farm, then the smell of manure won't phase me. If I weave in and out of traffic in a video game, then on some level I think it's not that hard in real life. If looking at a porn magazine in the Sims refreshes my 'pretend' character, then I'll tend to forget that the same action devastates my real one. If I kill a photorealistic person in a game, then I've formed at least on some level a neural pathway to store that memory experienced through the five sense - and to 'process', to 'deal with it.'
If I'm brought up on Cajun cooking from a very young age, then I will have a tolerance to spicy food. If I'm brought up on a farm, then the smell of manure won't phase me. If I weave in and out of traffic in a video game, then on some level I think it's not that hard in real life. If looking at a porn magazine in the Sims refreshes my 'pretend' character, then I'll tend to forget that the same action devastates my real one. If I kill a photorealistic person in a game, then I've formed at least on some level a neural pathway to store that memory experienced through the five sense - and to 'process', to 'deal with it.'
7.1.2011 | 11:45am
EWH says:
This decision in no wise abrogates or infringes upon the natural rights of parents. Parents retain the right to refuse to buy these games for their kids; they retain the right to monitor what their children buy with their allowance; they retain the right to return a video game that they disapprove of if their child somehow purchases it. Video games use a ratings system; studies show that most parents are aware of the ratings system and use it when making decisions. The problem, if there is one, is that parents are not taking advantage of their "natural rights" and parenting. In my experience, most of minors who play violent video games received the game from their parents.
7.1.2011 | 12:05pm
JDD says:
David Nickol,
If I may point out a bit of a double standard in your argument:
"There is no proof that the Columbine killers were in any way motivated by playing violent video games,..."
(An aside - we hear that demand for ironclad proof so often, and IMHO what we really need sometime on these pages is a discussion of what suffices as a reasonable proof.)
What you've said is an amazingly all-encompassing statement - something along the lines of which I think you yourself would object to if said by someone else on a different topic... What kind of proof would be enough for you? Because then you set the bar considerably lower in arguing for another explanation:
"...and in fact there are theories that they became aggressive in the real world because video games were taken away from them."
There are theories? You mean as I scroll down the comments on the Times page?
If I may point out a bit of a double standard in your argument:
"There is no proof that the Columbine killers were in any way motivated by playing violent video games,..."
(An aside - we hear that demand for ironclad proof so often, and IMHO what we really need sometime on these pages is a discussion of what suffices as a reasonable proof.)
What you've said is an amazingly all-encompassing statement - something along the lines of which I think you yourself would object to if said by someone else on a different topic... What kind of proof would be enough for you? Because then you set the bar considerably lower in arguing for another explanation:
"...and in fact there are theories that they became aggressive in the real world because video games were taken away from them."
There are theories? You mean as I scroll down the comments on the Times page?
7.1.2011 | 12:06pm
Chuck says:
There is of course, nothing in the world less relevant than the feelings of families, or anyone else, in Columbine. We are discussing a matter of fundamental right.
Justice Scalia used the example of fairy tales. I would use the example of Hamlet. Would you deny an young person the right to see Hamlet on the basis of some social theory?
Justice Scalia used the example of fairy tales. I would use the example of Hamlet. Would you deny an young person the right to see Hamlet on the basis of some social theory?
7.1.2011 | 12:10pm
SamPLW says:
One of the important things not mentioned here (though I think it may have been in one of the majority opinions) is that the video game industry already has a pretty robust rating and oversight committee, the ESRB, that assists retailers in keeping the sale of violent video games restricted to appropriate age groups.
------------
As a long time gamer and Catholic, I can totally understand the issues people have with violent video games; especially as they become more realistic. However, I also think that they are rarely the root cause of violence. Taking Columbine as an case in point - the kids there did play a shooting game called Counter-Strike as a means of planning their assault, but they didn't plan the assault because of the game.
In terms of issues troubling youth I think the much higher priorities should be an emphasis on parental involvement with their children and on better school environments. The isolation and defensiveness and violence that is bred by failures in those departments is what produces the motivation for school shootings. I cringe when I go shopping for games and some mother asks me about buying Gears of War for her 12-year-old. That's a level of irresponsibility and disinterest that the law cannot account for.
The Church needs to ever more boldly be itself in order to help. It needs to fight for families and for the souls of its young people. It's very encouraging to see Archbishop Chaput, Dolan, and many other members of the USCCB making their voices heard. This needs to continue and trickle down. I feel like my generation got hung out dry in terms of receiving this kind of help until now, so we as Catholics need to focus on not letting another one suffer the same fate.
------------
As a long time gamer and Catholic, I can totally understand the issues people have with violent video games; especially as they become more realistic. However, I also think that they are rarely the root cause of violence. Taking Columbine as an case in point - the kids there did play a shooting game called Counter-Strike as a means of planning their assault, but they didn't plan the assault because of the game.
In terms of issues troubling youth I think the much higher priorities should be an emphasis on parental involvement with their children and on better school environments. The isolation and defensiveness and violence that is bred by failures in those departments is what produces the motivation for school shootings. I cringe when I go shopping for games and some mother asks me about buying Gears of War for her 12-year-old. That's a level of irresponsibility and disinterest that the law cannot account for.
The Church needs to ever more boldly be itself in order to help. It needs to fight for families and for the souls of its young people. It's very encouraging to see Archbishop Chaput, Dolan, and many other members of the USCCB making their voices heard. This needs to continue and trickle down. I feel like my generation got hung out dry in terms of receiving this kind of help until now, so we as Catholics need to focus on not letting another one suffer the same fate.
7.1.2011 | 12:24pm
David Nickol says:
Common sense tells us . . . .
JDD,
Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality. But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone. However, there doesn't seem to be any, or at least none was presented to the court.
Also, demonstrating that violent video games have *some* effect on *some* young people isn't enough. And why single out video games? Why not pass laws preventing kids from going to movies, watching television, reading books with violent content, and reading comic books? The Archbishop says that "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere." As I said above, violent crime has been going down since the 1990s. Where is the violence going?
JDD,
Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality. But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone. However, there doesn't seem to be any, or at least none was presented to the court.
Also, demonstrating that violent video games have *some* effect on *some* young people isn't enough. And why single out video games? Why not pass laws preventing kids from going to movies, watching television, reading books with violent content, and reading comic books? The Archbishop says that "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere." As I said above, violent crime has been going down since the 1990s. Where is the violence going?
7.1.2011 | 12:44pm
SamPLW says:
@David
I think there is a definite difference between video games and at least books in terms of impact. That's why they get singled out. Though personally, I would agree that the difference between say... Saw III and whatever over the top game that comes to mind is negligible.
I would agree with you that data doesn't support a connection between the rise of gaming and crime. However, I think where that kind of violence goes is a coarsening of the conscience on various life issues like abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, treatment of immigrants, etc. I'm heavily into the gaming community (a.k.a I read a lot of websites and forums and watch streams) and I am forced to say that the majority of "core" gamers are really one way (not pro life) on those issues. Now, there could be a variety of reasons for that too, but I know first-hand that desensitization can cause your knee-jerk opinions on important matters to be more "off" morally than you'd think.
I think there is a definite difference between video games and at least books in terms of impact. That's why they get singled out. Though personally, I would agree that the difference between say... Saw III and whatever over the top game that comes to mind is negligible.
I would agree with you that data doesn't support a connection between the rise of gaming and crime. However, I think where that kind of violence goes is a coarsening of the conscience on various life issues like abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, treatment of immigrants, etc. I'm heavily into the gaming community (a.k.a I read a lot of websites and forums and watch streams) and I am forced to say that the majority of "core" gamers are really one way (not pro life) on those issues. Now, there could be a variety of reasons for that too, but I know first-hand that desensitization can cause your knee-jerk opinions on important matters to be more "off" morally than you'd think.
7.1.2011 | 1:24pm
andrew says:
i too am interested in JDD's question about what suffices as reasonable proof. what comes to mind is joe carter's discussion a few days ago about peter singer and "debates" over the wrongness of necrophilia.
are there any self-evident moral truths? must every moral claim be "proven?" if there are self-evident moral truths, then in a way these truths are known by "common sense." and archbishop chaput is not a fool for invoking such a thing.
my own position is that there are thoughts that stop all thought, first principles regarding the good that must be taken as given before any other meaningful conclusion can be drawn. specifically, i think the claim "murdering someone in virtual reality does not contribute to human flourishing" is self-evidently true.
of course, whether actions that do not contribute to human flourishing should be made illegal is a different question altogether. i am interested primarily in JDD's question and look forward to any answers.
are there any self-evident moral truths? must every moral claim be "proven?" if there are self-evident moral truths, then in a way these truths are known by "common sense." and archbishop chaput is not a fool for invoking such a thing.
my own position is that there are thoughts that stop all thought, first principles regarding the good that must be taken as given before any other meaningful conclusion can be drawn. specifically, i think the claim "murdering someone in virtual reality does not contribute to human flourishing" is self-evidently true.
of course, whether actions that do not contribute to human flourishing should be made illegal is a different question altogether. i am interested primarily in JDD's question and look forward to any answers.
7.1.2011 | 1:46pm
Justin D says:
I think the archbishop has a solid point in regard to the protection of free speech when directed at minors. Nonetheless, I think he side-tracked the argument by bringing in Columbine as has already been mentioned numerous times. It may or may not be the case that violent video games had an influence on the massacre, but until that's proven, it's strategically bad to include that in the argument.
I believe there is more evidence in the case of Columbine of Eric Harris (as seen in his journal) being influenced by Nietzsche's superman to do this, but protecting youth from Nietzsche (or any other book) only complicates the problem.
In short, I would suggest it's only relevant to discuss whether or not free speech directed toward minors is protected, not whether Colubmine in particular is a result of such speech.
I believe there is more evidence in the case of Columbine of Eric Harris (as seen in his journal) being influenced by Nietzsche's superman to do this, but protecting youth from Nietzsche (or any other book) only complicates the problem.
In short, I would suggest it's only relevant to discuss whether or not free speech directed toward minors is protected, not whether Colubmine in particular is a result of such speech.
7.1.2011 | 2:07pm
JDD says:
David Nickol,
"The Archbishop says that "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere." As I said above, violent crime has been going down since the 1990s. Where is the violence going?"
And where is the 'remaining' violence coming from. If crime is actually dropping - then great. This disproves that violent video games have an effect on violent crime? And perhaps the 'missing violence' is showing up in other forms. Anyone checked the suicide trends over the past decade? How about the depression rates?
My first impression after taking the Times article you cited at face value, is that it doesn't really seem to be that sure of its own conclusions - do you agree? Reading down the article, you start to get the sense that there's just a hodgepodge of disorganized statistics, some of which say one thing, then another. Crime is trending down - except in New York where rapes have increased 25% (!) And in San Antonio. And, oh yeah, in Philly violent crime is up... so I'd have to see a more organized paper on the subject. And what's our definition of 'violent' crime?
"Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality. But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone. However, there doesn't seem to be any, or at least none was presented to the court."
There are two different issues here, and I think our conversation has drifted away from the actual ruling we're discussing. The court ruled on whether violent video games could be *marketed* to minors, and as the Archbishop pointed out "Scalia, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor grants that certain categories of expression—obscenity, incitement, and fighting words—are excluded from First Amendment protection. But ...violent video games fall outside these narrow categories...."
But our discussion has turned to the question of whether video games should fall under these categories or not. So when you ask, "Why not pass laws preventing kids from going to movies, watching television, reading books with violent content, and reading comic books? - I think the court has already done some of that. We're talking about where that threshold should be - not whether there should be one at all. The courts *do* think there is and should be one.
What I see is that the pushback about the influence of various forms of media on young people always seems to be trying to 'divide and conquer.' The progression goes something like:
"You can't tell me that EVERY crime is due to violent video games!"
"No, I can't - of course not."
"Well, then you can't prove that violent video games are the culprit at all, so, hey, lay off violent video games!"
And in this way society picks off one root cause after another.
Instead, I think a better way of approaching the problem is to come to some agreement at the start that, yes, violent video games are clearly (and, if one can't accept that, then how about 'likely',) *one of many* elements that contribute to violence. If so, then we have to ask ourselves as a society if we want to just wring our hands hopelessly and hope that we only have one or two Columbines every few years?
"Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality."
That wouldn't be the point. The point is whether video games influence real behavior - whether a kid says, "Aw, I know it's just a game," or not.
But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone."
Here's a starting point: Kids are formed by their culture, and by what examples they see modeled to them. The are looking for role models of how to act, and looking for something to identify with, to find a concrete expression of what they are feeling. They have a tendency to imitate what they see and hear because *that's how the human person is formed.* See if you disagree with any of those three statements.
"The Archbishop says that "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere." As I said above, violent crime has been going down since the 1990s. Where is the violence going?"
And where is the 'remaining' violence coming from. If crime is actually dropping - then great. This disproves that violent video games have an effect on violent crime? And perhaps the 'missing violence' is showing up in other forms. Anyone checked the suicide trends over the past decade? How about the depression rates?
My first impression after taking the Times article you cited at face value, is that it doesn't really seem to be that sure of its own conclusions - do you agree? Reading down the article, you start to get the sense that there's just a hodgepodge of disorganized statistics, some of which say one thing, then another. Crime is trending down - except in New York where rapes have increased 25% (!) And in San Antonio. And, oh yeah, in Philly violent crime is up... so I'd have to see a more organized paper on the subject. And what's our definition of 'violent' crime?
"Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality. But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone. However, there doesn't seem to be any, or at least none was presented to the court."
There are two different issues here, and I think our conversation has drifted away from the actual ruling we're discussing. The court ruled on whether violent video games could be *marketed* to minors, and as the Archbishop pointed out "Scalia, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor grants that certain categories of expression—obscenity, incitement, and fighting words—are excluded from First Amendment protection. But ...violent video games fall outside these narrow categories...."
But our discussion has turned to the question of whether video games should fall under these categories or not. So when you ask, "Why not pass laws preventing kids from going to movies, watching television, reading books with violent content, and reading comic books? - I think the court has already done some of that. We're talking about where that threshold should be - not whether there should be one at all. The courts *do* think there is and should be one.
What I see is that the pushback about the influence of various forms of media on young people always seems to be trying to 'divide and conquer.' The progression goes something like:
"You can't tell me that EVERY crime is due to violent video games!"
"No, I can't - of course not."
"Well, then you can't prove that violent video games are the culprit at all, so, hey, lay off violent video games!"
And in this way society picks off one root cause after another.
Instead, I think a better way of approaching the problem is to come to some agreement at the start that, yes, violent video games are clearly (and, if one can't accept that, then how about 'likely',) *one of many* elements that contribute to violence. If so, then we have to ask ourselves as a society if we want to just wring our hands hopelessly and hope that we only have one or two Columbines every few years?
"Common sense tells me that kids know the difference between video games and reality."
That wouldn't be the point. The point is whether video games influence real behavior - whether a kid says, "Aw, I know it's just a game," or not.
But I am certainly open to solid evidence that violent video games make young people more violence prone."
Here's a starting point: Kids are formed by their culture, and by what examples they see modeled to them. The are looking for role models of how to act, and looking for something to identify with, to find a concrete expression of what they are feeling. They have a tendency to imitate what they see and hear because *that's how the human person is formed.* See if you disagree with any of those three statements.
7.1.2011 | 2:10pm
Patrick says:
I'm sick of arguments suggesting what the drafters of the Constitution meant by what they wrote. Their meaning is not conveyed in the Constitution...when people use this argument, they do so to add their own footnotes to the document. The drafters of the Constitution meant what they wrote, and they wrote it in plain English. This does necessitate some interpretation, however, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to try to interpret what one or other of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind...undoubtedly the founding fathers themselves would have disagreed over what they meant. If the drafters of the Constitution had something else, more complicated, in mind, then they would have written their own footnotes. Period.
7.1.2011 | 2:32pm
Alessandra says:
David Nickol says:
If it is so obvious that video games have deleterious effects on young people, there ought to be some halfway persuasive research to demonstrate what they are. Also, someone is going to have to explain why, if “common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere,” the rate of violent crime is at a 40-year low.
=========
How many times that a fight breaks out in school, does it get reported to the police?
How many times that youngsters call it each other horrible names, do their parents to each other to court?
How many times that a kid is bullied, does their experience get counted in a study?
How many times that some adolescent with a homosexual problem sexually harasses another school mate, does the case make the news?
I would say you have no clue whatsoever about the rate of practically any harmful behavior by young people, with perhaps the exception of murder.
Generally speaking, the majority of victims have no public voice, much less visibility. It is disgusting to see how people just completely ignore them to go on their jingoistic claims about the "niceness" of society.
If it is so obvious that video games have deleterious effects on young people, there ought to be some halfway persuasive research to demonstrate what they are. Also, someone is going to have to explain why, if “common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere,” the rate of violent crime is at a 40-year low.
=========
How many times that a fight breaks out in school, does it get reported to the police?
How many times that youngsters call it each other horrible names, do their parents to each other to court?
How many times that a kid is bullied, does their experience get counted in a study?
How many times that some adolescent with a homosexual problem sexually harasses another school mate, does the case make the news?
I would say you have no clue whatsoever about the rate of practically any harmful behavior by young people, with perhaps the exception of murder.
Generally speaking, the majority of victims have no public voice, much less visibility. It is disgusting to see how people just completely ignore them to go on their jingoistic claims about the "niceness" of society.
7.1.2011 | 3:14pm
David Nickol says:
JDD and Alessandra,
My point is very simple. There needs to be evidence. We're talking about the Supreme Court being asked to break new ground in limiting First Amendment rights. I cited the decreasing rate of violent crime. You (Alessandra) countered that with conjecture but no evidence. (There are, by the way, statistics about such things as school violence.) You can't expect government to pass laws, or the Supreme Court to make landmark decisions, in the absence of evidence.
There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person.
In any case, conjecture and even "common sense" is not enough. There has to be evidence.
My point is very simple. There needs to be evidence. We're talking about the Supreme Court being asked to break new ground in limiting First Amendment rights. I cited the decreasing rate of violent crime. You (Alessandra) countered that with conjecture but no evidence. (There are, by the way, statistics about such things as school violence.) You can't expect government to pass laws, or the Supreme Court to make landmark decisions, in the absence of evidence.
There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person.
In any case, conjecture and even "common sense" is not enough. There has to be evidence.
7.1.2011 | 4:28pm
Alessandra says:
David,
My main point is that you prop up a very limited type of information on "violent crime" as if:
1) this data comprised all cases of any type of violence in the US - ridiculously false
2) this data included all types of violence committed by minors - ridiculously false
You presented no evidence about trends regarding dysfunctional attitudes and behavior for the youth *in question*. You say there needs to be evidence, and, so far, I can see no evidence from you to support anything you claim.
David: There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person.
============
There are people who argue you'd be better off if they sold you a bridge. Doesn't mean it's true.
A violent culture will influence in different extents the minds of millions of people. That is absolutely true.
David: "If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person."
Why?
Would you be in favor then of a slew of video games where people would insult, bully,and kill people with a homosexual problem for fun or for points? How about a game where one of the objectives would be to hang as many homosexuals from a tree and watch them squirm to death? Or to take a baseball bat and hit a lesbian in the face to watch the bloody mess that's left over for a laugh?
Do you think that would be beneficial to society? I would love to try this experiment for real in society simply to show what hypocrites liberals who want to poison society with a violent culture are. That would be so much fun.
Can you imagine the reaction of these little homosexual activists and liberal politicians if one announced the plans for this for real? They'd go bonkers. About face on every thing they claim. They'd throw out the window this ridiculous discourse that culture doesn't affect behavior in less than two seconds.
Then, I would love to come to them and say, look, I played the video and I didn't hang anyone from a tree in real life, so where's the problem? Where's the evidence?
===========
As to the issue of the decision itself, I haven't even read it, so I can't comment on it. I'm not opposed to requests for evidence for anything, but what I object first and foremost is the lie that a violent culture has no effects en masse on people.
Every historical record that we have shows that where there was a violent culture, we can observe how this produced violent behavior and harm in society.
It's so incredibly 1984ish to say the opposite, that only liberals could manage.
My main point is that you prop up a very limited type of information on "violent crime" as if:
1) this data comprised all cases of any type of violence in the US - ridiculously false
2) this data included all types of violence committed by minors - ridiculously false
You presented no evidence about trends regarding dysfunctional attitudes and behavior for the youth *in question*. You say there needs to be evidence, and, so far, I can see no evidence from you to support anything you claim.
David: There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person.
============
There are people who argue you'd be better off if they sold you a bridge. Doesn't mean it's true.
A violent culture will influence in different extents the minds of millions of people. That is absolutely true.
David: "If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person."
Why?
Would you be in favor then of a slew of video games where people would insult, bully,and kill people with a homosexual problem for fun or for points? How about a game where one of the objectives would be to hang as many homosexuals from a tree and watch them squirm to death? Or to take a baseball bat and hit a lesbian in the face to watch the bloody mess that's left over for a laugh?
Do you think that would be beneficial to society? I would love to try this experiment for real in society simply to show what hypocrites liberals who want to poison society with a violent culture are. That would be so much fun.
Can you imagine the reaction of these little homosexual activists and liberal politicians if one announced the plans for this for real? They'd go bonkers. About face on every thing they claim. They'd throw out the window this ridiculous discourse that culture doesn't affect behavior in less than two seconds.
Then, I would love to come to them and say, look, I played the video and I didn't hang anyone from a tree in real life, so where's the problem? Where's the evidence?
===========
As to the issue of the decision itself, I haven't even read it, so I can't comment on it. I'm not opposed to requests for evidence for anything, but what I object first and foremost is the lie that a violent culture has no effects en masse on people.
Every historical record that we have shows that where there was a violent culture, we can observe how this produced violent behavior and harm in society.
It's so incredibly 1984ish to say the opposite, that only liberals could manage.
7.1.2011 | 4:40pm
Gil Costello says:
Not working, I got to spend a lot of time at the school playground where my grandson went to school, one that truly is better than most in Seattle, Washington. What amazes me is how extensive the bullying is and how teachers and even the principal make light of it or make excuses for it. These kids no doubt are influenced by the video games Archbishop Chaput alludes to, but the violent indifference of teachers and parents probably goes deeper in molding the minds of children in Lord of the Flies fashion.
The fiction writer Harlan Ellison said that he was bullied almost every day when growing up, and he uses the literal names of those bullies when he creates bad guys in his fiction. And he readily admits that had he not become a writer, he could have easily become one of those kids that go into a school and start killing. It’s probably a good thing that when he was a kid he didn’t have access to the murder video gams.
The fiction writer Harlan Ellison said that he was bullied almost every day when growing up, and he uses the literal names of those bullies when he creates bad guys in his fiction. And he readily admits that had he not become a writer, he could have easily become one of those kids that go into a school and start killing. It’s probably a good thing that when he was a kid he didn’t have access to the murder video gams.
7.1.2011 | 4:49pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
David Nickol is correct, and repeatedly correct, however much people tell him that they "just know" he is wrong and are sure that there is evidence somewhere to back them up. Violent crime, including sexual crime, is down - across the board. Why? We don't know. Theories abound. Some even suggest that video games and porn have had a distractive, substitutive, or cathartic effect. Maybe so, but that's as unproven as the counter-theories provided here. But at a minimum, we can say that even though violence has become more graphic, violent crime has gone down.
I wouldn't have expected that myself. My belief for years was that fantasy sex and violence are rehearsals for the actual. Yet this has not turned out to be true, and the trend is coming on to two decades now. I am not asking anyone to prove definitively that violent games have some deleterious effect - I am merely asking for some evidence that it does. The complaints against Mr. Nickol and his POV have not included evidence, merely the repeated assertions that there just must be some bad effect.
Some bad effect may indeed show up over the years. Or we may discover that there is a bad effect on 1% of the population, leaving us with an odd tradeoff question as to rights and freedom. But those who want government to forbid Product X need to pony up some evidence that there is some reason to do that beyond a general sense that it should.
I wouldn't have expected that myself. My belief for years was that fantasy sex and violence are rehearsals for the actual. Yet this has not turned out to be true, and the trend is coming on to two decades now. I am not asking anyone to prove definitively that violent games have some deleterious effect - I am merely asking for some evidence that it does. The complaints against Mr. Nickol and his POV have not included evidence, merely the repeated assertions that there just must be some bad effect.
Some bad effect may indeed show up over the years. Or we may discover that there is a bad effect on 1% of the population, leaving us with an odd tradeoff question as to rights and freedom. But those who want government to forbid Product X need to pony up some evidence that there is some reason to do that beyond a general sense that it should.
7.1.2011 | 4:50pm
Mike Melendez says:
I do believe there are reprehensible games (books, videos, songs) out there. I don't play them and I won't let my son (15) play them.
In this case, perhaps the better approach is to encourage the industry to adopt a voluntary standard. As someone pointed out elsewhere, there is a rating system. Perhaps it should be extended to sales. Whatever you think of the movie ratings, I have seen pre-17 turned away from R-rated movies. (One even turned to me asking how old I thought he was. I told him he didn't want to know.) And I doubt the government is likely to be any better at identifying reprehensible content.
Then again, I remember being 16 with two other friends. We decided we needed a beer. After considerable trying, we turned up a 6-pack. I couldn't finish one. None of us could. It tasted terrible.
If we teach our children well and support each other as parents, we can make an impact without asking others to parent us, particularly when those who would parent us seem to have some pretty bad ideas.
There are lines to be drawn, but I do not believe this to be one of them that needs the government's help.
In this case, perhaps the better approach is to encourage the industry to adopt a voluntary standard. As someone pointed out elsewhere, there is a rating system. Perhaps it should be extended to sales. Whatever you think of the movie ratings, I have seen pre-17 turned away from R-rated movies. (One even turned to me asking how old I thought he was. I told him he didn't want to know.) And I doubt the government is likely to be any better at identifying reprehensible content.
Then again, I remember being 16 with two other friends. We decided we needed a beer. After considerable trying, we turned up a 6-pack. I couldn't finish one. None of us could. It tasted terrible.
If we teach our children well and support each other as parents, we can make an impact without asking others to parent us, particularly when those who would parent us seem to have some pretty bad ideas.
There are lines to be drawn, but I do not believe this to be one of them that needs the government's help.
7.1.2011 | 4:56pm
JDD says:
David Nickol,
"My point is very simple. There needs to be evidence."
I am wondering if you've responded to any of the points I've brought up in my previous two (long) posts, and I wonder what evidence would look like to you? I think I'm responding to your points, but I'll keep this one shorter.
Citing the decreasing rate of violent crime as solid evidence against the influence of violent video games, is itself conjecture and as I mentioned in my last post, not even addressing the actual point at hand. It's your argument and you need to explain it better. It's like saying that the national heart attack rate is decreasing, therefore fatty food obviously isn't bad for you - because if it were, how would you explain the decrease?
"There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person."
This is the second time you've said that, and I want to know - who's arguing this? Where is their data? I don't understand how you can chide against conjecture, and then without blinking write this. If you want to pursue this argument, please send a link to something.
As for myself, I think it's an utterly unconvincing argument that indulging in a whole lot of something makes you not want it any more. I've heard that argument a lot in different venues and here's what I think about it: The error is in mistaking the short-term catharsis for a long-term effect. Using the eating analogy again, the mistake is in speculating that over-eating every day will somehow make you not want to over-eat. That it won't in the least lead to a disposition for over-eating. Does that make sense to you?
Indeed, a boy might take out his aggression in a violent video game, where he, shall we say, kicks ass, man - and maybe that hard day of being bullied at school fades away a bit. So the short-term effect is that he 'feels better.' He feels better because he's indulged in violence that he avoided earlier - *and in fact upped the ante.* He's killed eighty people or run over eighty pedestrians. Which way do you think his character has gone?
Happy Independence Day to you David
"My point is very simple. There needs to be evidence."
I am wondering if you've responded to any of the points I've brought up in my previous two (long) posts, and I wonder what evidence would look like to you? I think I'm responding to your points, but I'll keep this one shorter.
Citing the decreasing rate of violent crime as solid evidence against the influence of violent video games, is itself conjecture and as I mentioned in my last post, not even addressing the actual point at hand. It's your argument and you need to explain it better. It's like saying that the national heart attack rate is decreasing, therefore fatty food obviously isn't bad for you - because if it were, how would you explain the decrease?
"There are, by the way, those who argue that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses rather than creating them. If you can take out your hostilities on a virtual person, maybe you won't take them out on a real person."
This is the second time you've said that, and I want to know - who's arguing this? Where is their data? I don't understand how you can chide against conjecture, and then without blinking write this. If you want to pursue this argument, please send a link to something.
As for myself, I think it's an utterly unconvincing argument that indulging in a whole lot of something makes you not want it any more. I've heard that argument a lot in different venues and here's what I think about it: The error is in mistaking the short-term catharsis for a long-term effect. Using the eating analogy again, the mistake is in speculating that over-eating every day will somehow make you not want to over-eat. That it won't in the least lead to a disposition for over-eating. Does that make sense to you?
Indeed, a boy might take out his aggression in a violent video game, where he, shall we say, kicks ass, man - and maybe that hard day of being bullied at school fades away a bit. So the short-term effect is that he 'feels better.' He feels better because he's indulged in violence that he avoided earlier - *and in fact upped the ante.* He's killed eighty people or run over eighty pedestrians. Which way do you think his character has gone?
Happy Independence Day to you David
7.1.2011 | 6:01pm
David Nickol says:
JDD,
Happy 4th to you, too.
I will try to focus more intently on answering your specific questions over the weekend. In the meanwhile, you say, "Using the eating analogy again, the mistake is in speculating that over-eating every day will somehow make you not want to over-eat. That it won't in the least lead to a disposition for over-eating. Does that make sense to you?"
I don't know how seriously (if at all) to take the study below, but violent video games are fantasy violence, and overeating is real eating. What about fantasy eating? Does it make you hungrier or less hungry? See this news story:
Stop Food Cravings Through Imaginary Eating?
Imaginary chewing and swallowing can reduce cravings, study says.
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
December 9, 2010
Fighting an M&M's craving this holiday season? Let that milk chocolate melt in your mind—not in your mouth.
According to new research, imagining eating a specific food reduces your interest in that food, so you eat less of it.
This reaction to repeated exposure to food is called habituation, and it's well known to occur while eating. A "tenth bite of chocolate, for example, is desired less than the first bite," the study authors note.
But the new research is the first to show that habituation can occur solely via the power of the mind.
"A lot of people who diet try to avoid thinking about stimuli they crave. This research suggests that may not be the best strategy," said study leader Carey Morewedge, a psychologist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
"If you just think about the food itself—how it tastes, smells, and looks—[that will] increase your appetite," Morewedge said.
"This research suggests that it might be better, actually, to force yourself to repeatedly think about tasting, swallowing, and chewing the food you crave to reduce your cravings."
What's more, the technique works with only the food you've imagined, he added. For instance, imagining eating chocolate wouldn't prevent you from gorging on cheese. . . .
For the rest, see
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101209-chocolate-obesity-science-mind-diet-weight-loss-eat-food/
Happy 4th to you, too.
I will try to focus more intently on answering your specific questions over the weekend. In the meanwhile, you say, "Using the eating analogy again, the mistake is in speculating that over-eating every day will somehow make you not want to over-eat. That it won't in the least lead to a disposition for over-eating. Does that make sense to you?"
I don't know how seriously (if at all) to take the study below, but violent video games are fantasy violence, and overeating is real eating. What about fantasy eating? Does it make you hungrier or less hungry? See this news story:
Stop Food Cravings Through Imaginary Eating?
Imaginary chewing and swallowing can reduce cravings, study says.
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
December 9, 2010
Fighting an M&M's craving this holiday season? Let that milk chocolate melt in your mind—not in your mouth.
According to new research, imagining eating a specific food reduces your interest in that food, so you eat less of it.
This reaction to repeated exposure to food is called habituation, and it's well known to occur while eating. A "tenth bite of chocolate, for example, is desired less than the first bite," the study authors note.
But the new research is the first to show that habituation can occur solely via the power of the mind.
"A lot of people who diet try to avoid thinking about stimuli they crave. This research suggests that may not be the best strategy," said study leader Carey Morewedge, a psychologist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
"If you just think about the food itself—how it tastes, smells, and looks—[that will] increase your appetite," Morewedge said.
"This research suggests that it might be better, actually, to force yourself to repeatedly think about tasting, swallowing, and chewing the food you crave to reduce your cravings."
What's more, the technique works with only the food you've imagined, he added. For instance, imagining eating chocolate wouldn't prevent you from gorging on cheese. . . .
For the rest, see
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101209-chocolate-obesity-science-mind-diet-weight-loss-eat-food/
7.1.2011 | 6:22pm
andrew says:
on the subject of "evidence:"
what evidence is there that having sex with a corpse (while using a condom for protection against diseases) is wrong?
happy canada day.
what evidence is there that having sex with a corpse (while using a condom for protection against diseases) is wrong?
happy canada day.
7.1.2011 | 6:29pm
Nancy says:
If the state can ban the sale of guns and alcohol to those under 18 I don't see how violent video games are any different. All these are some from of freedom of expression.
7.1.2011 | 9:10pm
Patrick says:
As a corollary to opposition to amoral video games, I'd suggest that there are many quite healthy, even beautiful, video games out there, worthy of support. Games are to some extent the last refuge of clear moral principles in a relativistic society. Some, at least, have Tolkien-esque themes of a noble hero who must save the kingdom (often a gorgeously rendered landscape, a work of art in itself) from an invading army of demons, and who finds refreshment at Gothic cathedrals attended by friendly and learned monks. I think these sort of games speak to a longing for traditional Western culture among the young. (I have in mind role-playing games like the Elder Scrolls series and Baldur's Gate.) I can personally attest to becoming more interested in the real Catholic Church through these electronic mythologies. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
7.1.2011 | 10:49pm
ann says:
Archbishop Chaput has pointed out something very important. Alito and Roberts are originalists.
Clarence Thomas gets it right. Why? Because he is the only justice who is informed by the natural law.
Don't forget this. There are few of them left. Pray he will lead the way on re-establishing the natural law umbrella over the Constitution.
Clarence Thomas gets it right. Why? Because he is the only justice who is informed by the natural law.
Don't forget this. There are few of them left. Pray he will lead the way on re-establishing the natural law umbrella over the Constitution.
7.2.2011 | 12:35am
Joseph Vanderhulst says:
To all those defending the decision of the majority in this case:
Please read the decision and the statute that was being challenged. This case was not about whether children have the right to play violent video games or whether the companies have the right to produce them. It was not about the morality of violent video games. Nothing in this case bears any relation to a discussion on the merit of violent video games.
The case was about whether the state could ban the sale or rental of such games to minors bypassing their parents. Period. Under the law, the parent or guardian could get the game for the child. The parent could even sell or rent the game to his or her child if the parent owned the game store. It was simply about whether the state could ensure that children cannot access certain games without going through their parents. That's it.
The legitimacy of laws restricting contact with minors without parental consent is beyond question, as Thomas points out. Scalia's decision is absolutely inconsistent with the validity of any other parental consent or minor laws. Why is it constitutional to ban the sale of pornography to minors? It's not because it's unprotected speech. How can justice Scalia uphold parental consent laws for abortion?
Justice Thomas was the only one who was right on this case as far as the original understanding of the Constitution goes, as well as from the perspective of natural law. But the majority represents yet another patently absurd application of the First Amendment: I'm sure the Founders really wanted to make sure that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect every little kid's right to play Grand Theft Auto. Oh yeah, not just to play it, but to make sure the government cannot restrict their access to it in any way either. That's exactly what they were thinking...
Please read the decision and the statute that was being challenged. This case was not about whether children have the right to play violent video games or whether the companies have the right to produce them. It was not about the morality of violent video games. Nothing in this case bears any relation to a discussion on the merit of violent video games.
The case was about whether the state could ban the sale or rental of such games to minors bypassing their parents. Period. Under the law, the parent or guardian could get the game for the child. The parent could even sell or rent the game to his or her child if the parent owned the game store. It was simply about whether the state could ensure that children cannot access certain games without going through their parents. That's it.
The legitimacy of laws restricting contact with minors without parental consent is beyond question, as Thomas points out. Scalia's decision is absolutely inconsistent with the validity of any other parental consent or minor laws. Why is it constitutional to ban the sale of pornography to minors? It's not because it's unprotected speech. How can justice Scalia uphold parental consent laws for abortion?
Justice Thomas was the only one who was right on this case as far as the original understanding of the Constitution goes, as well as from the perspective of natural law. But the majority represents yet another patently absurd application of the First Amendment: I'm sure the Founders really wanted to make sure that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect every little kid's right to play Grand Theft Auto. Oh yeah, not just to play it, but to make sure the government cannot restrict their access to it in any way either. That's exactly what they were thinking...
7.2.2011 | 2:31am
kevin says:
prefacing something with "pray for" it continue is the equivalent of "hoping"... but i digress
as someone who was horribly bullied for many years in middle and high school, violent games in which i could release my aggression were a large reason why i chose not to bring guns to school, choose self harm or hurt others. everyone on this site does not deal with schools these days. you see the degradation of "values" and choose to instill your own value sets on mindsets you do not understand. the fact of the matter is, schools, sports, porn and life today are violent and graphic, and that is a reality, whether or not any of you choose to agree with that. i fully and respectfully disagree with most of the comments here, as you choose to pick issues that offend you and do not have any solutions to the larger issues. teach your kids self esteem and love and they will not need porn and violence for pleasure.
as someone who was horribly bullied for many years in middle and high school, violent games in which i could release my aggression were a large reason why i chose not to bring guns to school, choose self harm or hurt others. everyone on this site does not deal with schools these days. you see the degradation of "values" and choose to instill your own value sets on mindsets you do not understand. the fact of the matter is, schools, sports, porn and life today are violent and graphic, and that is a reality, whether or not any of you choose to agree with that. i fully and respectfully disagree with most of the comments here, as you choose to pick issues that offend you and do not have any solutions to the larger issues. teach your kids self esteem and love and they will not need porn and violence for pleasure.
7.2.2011 | 9:33am
Margaret says:
Both the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were extremely disturbed young men. Dave Cullen wrote an interesting book about the psychological profiles of the two killers. Eric Harris appears to have been a true psychopath -- entirely without empathy, remorse, or any warm human feeling. I hope that one day there will be screening that identifies these people. Perhaps treatments will be developed than can ameliorate or even cure their condition. His problems ran much deeper than watching a few video games.
7.2.2011 | 1:53pm
Alessandra says:
Margaret says:
Both the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were extremely disturbed young men. Dave Cullen wrote an interesting book about the psychological profiles of the two killers. Eric Harris appears to have been a true psychopath -- entirely without empathy, remorse, or any warm human feeling.
============
I didn't read too much about their details at the time, but what I remember is that they had been treated like trash in their school environment for a long time. They had been completely abandoned with their serious psychological and emotional issues for more than a couple of years (at least, the more disturbed one).
This is criminal neglect from a moral standpoint by school personnel, even if neglect defined by law may be different.
Is anyone surprised that as time went on, his psychological condition only became more and more disturbed?
No one cared about him--but you want him to care about others? Something in that equation doesn't add up.
Both the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were extremely disturbed young men. Dave Cullen wrote an interesting book about the psychological profiles of the two killers. Eric Harris appears to have been a true psychopath -- entirely without empathy, remorse, or any warm human feeling.
============
I didn't read too much about their details at the time, but what I remember is that they had been treated like trash in their school environment for a long time. They had been completely abandoned with their serious psychological and emotional issues for more than a couple of years (at least, the more disturbed one).
This is criminal neglect from a moral standpoint by school personnel, even if neglect defined by law may be different.
Is anyone surprised that as time went on, his psychological condition only became more and more disturbed?
No one cared about him--but you want him to care about others? Something in that equation doesn't add up.
7.2.2011 | 2:03pm
Larry says:
You might as well add that if we get rid of guns there will be no more killing.
It's simply not true. When I was a kid and went to school there were no video games and kids were bullies and fought all the time. I know there are some obsene games out there, ones I would never buy. But many of the so called violent games are games where you save the world or country. In Halo, you fight aliens and save the universe. At the same time, it's a game of skill and compitition that you can play online with people all over the planet. My boys have played video games since they were six. Their now 22 and 23 and two of the most descent people you would ever want to meet. They go to college, dont smoke do drugs or prey on women. They even still have the 10 commandments above their beds. When I was younger one of my favorite games was dodge ball. We got into fights all the time. It hurt when you got hit in the head. But we don't seek supreme court rulings for our kids to play it.
It's simply not true. When I was a kid and went to school there were no video games and kids were bullies and fought all the time. I know there are some obsene games out there, ones I would never buy. But many of the so called violent games are games where you save the world or country. In Halo, you fight aliens and save the universe. At the same time, it's a game of skill and compitition that you can play online with people all over the planet. My boys have played video games since they were six. Their now 22 and 23 and two of the most descent people you would ever want to meet. They go to college, dont smoke do drugs or prey on women. They even still have the 10 commandments above their beds. When I was younger one of my favorite games was dodge ball. We got into fights all the time. It hurt when you got hit in the head. But we don't seek supreme court rulings for our kids to play it.
7.2.2011 | 5:28pm
David Nickol says:
JDD,
You say: "If crime is actually dropping - then great. This disproves that violent video games have an effect on violent crime?"
No, my point is not to prove that violent video games (or movies, or television shows, or comic books) are not responsible for violence in society. It's to point out that this has not been *demonstrated,* and there are arguments for and against. But the fact that violent crime has been decreasing while violent video games have become more popular does raise the question as to where the alleged increase in violence is happening if it is not reflected in the crime rate.
You say: "Citing the decreasing rate of violent crime as solid evidence against the influence of violent video games, is itself conjecture and as I mentioned in my last post, not even addressing the actual point at hand."
I did not say it was solid evidence of anything, but I would rank it a little higher than conjecture. The declining rate of violent crime is an empirical fact. I would seem to me it at least is part of a plausible answer to whether violent video games contribute to violent crime. If the number of people playing violent games is on the increase, and the violence of the games is growing more intense, yet the crime rate is decreasing, you have a very solid beginning of an argument that video games are not the cause of violent crime. And if video games are responsible for an increase in violence but not violent crime, you have to say where that violence is happening.
You say: "This is the second time you've said that, and I want to know - who's arguing this? [That is, that that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses]
The last line in the abstract of a study titled "Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime" reads: "Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959
See also the part of the Wikipedia article about the Columbine killers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Video_games
I am not saying these theories are true. I am saying that while some people say video games increase violence, others say they do not increase violence, or they actually decrease violence. We need a lot more evidence to decide who is right.
You say: "The error is in mistaking the short-term catharsis for a long-term effect."
Having a short-term catharsis that you resort to again and again amounts to a long-term solution. One of the things some people argue is that video games are addictive. Well, the more of your time you spend playing video games, the less of your time you spend doing other things.
But again, I am not trying to prove that violent video games really *do* decrease violence. I am saying it is a question that is not settled, and it cannot be settled without real EVIDENCE. You are right to be suspicious of conjecture. That is exactly the point I am making. It is not good enough to say, "Common sense tells us that violent video games are harmful to children." Let me qualify that. It may perfectly well be good enough for *parents* to say that and to forbid their children to play violent video games. But it's not good enough for the Supreme Court to rely on "common sense" instead of evidence. (Remember that it was "common sense" until Galileo showed otherwise that a heavier weight falls faster than a lighter weight.) And if you read the Supreme Court decision, you will see that the evidence provided by the state was very weak. (See my message of 7.1.2011 | 7:20am above, for example.)
You say: "If crime is actually dropping - then great. This disproves that violent video games have an effect on violent crime?"
No, my point is not to prove that violent video games (or movies, or television shows, or comic books) are not responsible for violence in society. It's to point out that this has not been *demonstrated,* and there are arguments for and against. But the fact that violent crime has been decreasing while violent video games have become more popular does raise the question as to where the alleged increase in violence is happening if it is not reflected in the crime rate.
You say: "Citing the decreasing rate of violent crime as solid evidence against the influence of violent video games, is itself conjecture and as I mentioned in my last post, not even addressing the actual point at hand."
I did not say it was solid evidence of anything, but I would rank it a little higher than conjecture. The declining rate of violent crime is an empirical fact. I would seem to me it at least is part of a plausible answer to whether violent video games contribute to violent crime. If the number of people playing violent games is on the increase, and the violence of the games is growing more intense, yet the crime rate is decreasing, you have a very solid beginning of an argument that video games are not the cause of violent crime. And if video games are responsible for an increase in violence but not violent crime, you have to say where that violence is happening.
You say: "This is the second time you've said that, and I want to know - who's arguing this? [That is, that that violent video games act as an *outlet* for violent impulses]
The last line in the abstract of a study titled "Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime" reads: "Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959
See also the part of the Wikipedia article about the Columbine killers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Video_games
I am not saying these theories are true. I am saying that while some people say video games increase violence, others say they do not increase violence, or they actually decrease violence. We need a lot more evidence to decide who is right.
You say: "The error is in mistaking the short-term catharsis for a long-term effect."
Having a short-term catharsis that you resort to again and again amounts to a long-term solution. One of the things some people argue is that video games are addictive. Well, the more of your time you spend playing video games, the less of your time you spend doing other things.
But again, I am not trying to prove that violent video games really *do* decrease violence. I am saying it is a question that is not settled, and it cannot be settled without real EVIDENCE. You are right to be suspicious of conjecture. That is exactly the point I am making. It is not good enough to say, "Common sense tells us that violent video games are harmful to children." Let me qualify that. It may perfectly well be good enough for *parents* to say that and to forbid their children to play violent video games. But it's not good enough for the Supreme Court to rely on "common sense" instead of evidence. (Remember that it was "common sense" until Galileo showed otherwise that a heavier weight falls faster than a lighter weight.) And if you read the Supreme Court decision, you will see that the evidence provided by the state was very weak. (See my message of 7.1.2011 | 7:20am above, for example.)
7.2.2011 | 7:43pm
Margaret says:
Alessandra writes, "No one cared about him--but you want him to care about others? Something in that equation doesn't add up."
Alessandra, Dave Cullen's book attempts to dispel some of the myths about Harris and Klebold being alienated or bullied. Apparently they both came from good homes and were treated well in school by their peers and teachers. They were attracted to violent video games but not necessarily influenced by them. The point Cullen makes (and you can agree or disagree) is that the boys' problems were largely inherent. He paints Harris as a sadistic psychopath who was completely narcissistic, filled with contempt for other people, devoid of empathy, incapable of feeling remorse, and excited by inflicting pain; he describes Klebold as a depressed follower. I don't know that one can blame the schools for not picking up on the red flags. Sociopaths can be so charming, cunning, and manipulative that it can be difficult to recognize them. What I was thinking of in terms of "screening" is some sort of medical scan that might show the abnormalities in the frontal lobe often associated with psychopaths. Science isn't at that point yet, but perhaps in the future it will be. Of course, there are all sorts of ethical problems associated with intervention in the lives of potentially destructive people. It's an interesting subject.
Alessandra, Dave Cullen's book attempts to dispel some of the myths about Harris and Klebold being alienated or bullied. Apparently they both came from good homes and were treated well in school by their peers and teachers. They were attracted to violent video games but not necessarily influenced by them. The point Cullen makes (and you can agree or disagree) is that the boys' problems were largely inherent. He paints Harris as a sadistic psychopath who was completely narcissistic, filled with contempt for other people, devoid of empathy, incapable of feeling remorse, and excited by inflicting pain; he describes Klebold as a depressed follower. I don't know that one can blame the schools for not picking up on the red flags. Sociopaths can be so charming, cunning, and manipulative that it can be difficult to recognize them. What I was thinking of in terms of "screening" is some sort of medical scan that might show the abnormalities in the frontal lobe often associated with psychopaths. Science isn't at that point yet, but perhaps in the future it will be. Of course, there are all sorts of ethical problems associated with intervention in the lives of potentially destructive people. It's an interesting subject.
7.3.2011 | 1:41am
James Heaney says:
This case -- and many others -- would be a lot simpler if the SCOTUS rejected the novel doctrine of incorporation (not even a century old!), reaffirmed its holding in U.S. v. Cruikshank, and admitted the obvious: the First Amendment (and most other sections of the Bill of Rights) do not restrict the states and never were intended to! The First Amendment reads, "CONGRESS shall make no law," not "CALIFORNIA shall make no law."
In short, this should have been settled by the California Supreme Court. The idea that state speech laws are a federal matter is a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution that has led to countless depredations of the lives, liberty, and property of the vulnerable -- especially the unborn.
Thank you, Abp. Chaput, for a fine reflection on the case all the same.
In short, this should have been settled by the California Supreme Court. The idea that state speech laws are a federal matter is a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution that has led to countless depredations of the lives, liberty, and property of the vulnerable -- especially the unborn.
Thank you, Abp. Chaput, for a fine reflection on the case all the same.
7.3.2011 | 5:06pm
Maxime says:
I played "violent" games and turned out just fine.
Parents should control what is allowed/not allowed in the household, the state should have no say in that.
This was just the latest way for the Nanny-Staters to take guns away from kids. In this case virtual guns.
Parents should control what is allowed/not allowed in the household, the state should have no say in that.
This was just the latest way for the Nanny-Staters to take guns away from kids. In this case virtual guns.
7.3.2011 | 11:15pm
Kesha says:
I think every techology will come with bad and good side. Not only for children and also us, the adults and parents. But true that children will get easily affected by "violent" actions from TV shows, movies, and even video games. Parents should be there beside them. They should tell what is good and bad, what is should and shouldn't do based on everything the children see. We can't just blame those who create those "violent" games. Parents should be active in this case.
7.4.2011 | 6:33am
edmond says:
I used to play streetfighter and commando with my kids in the eighties. They loved watching wwf and I trained them, all four including my three year old daughter then how to shoot real guns. Today they are part of the working class, they know their limitations, and know the difference between a "black ops" video game and a burglars breaking into our yard. Games and violent tv shows can be bad when they distort a child's sense of reality but this mostly happens when parents don't care enough to engage them. Sure, play the games with them and shoot the game down as a foolish fantasy, of course after making it a point to win the game. Yes and there are parents who shove video games into the psyche of their kids so that the kids are too mesmerized to realize their parents are still trying to live their own lives.
7.4.2011 | 7:29am
edmond says:
I read through this article twice and could not believe the stuff written here. I played mortal kombat, street fighter and other games with my kids in the eighties and early nineties. Today they are in their late twenties with post grad degrees and working in top and mid level management positions. I taught them all how to shoot real guns as early as five years old (my daughter started shooting at three). They are all disciplined, they don't smoke, don't do drugs and have an occasional beer with their officemates. They are human beings who seek God. Even if they are financially independent they recognize the value of keeping the family strong. My point here being, video games are bad if parents shove them at their kids so the parents can enjoy night life. The culpablity belongs to the parents and not the video games people. You have to be there to shoot down those games and flights of fantasies as foolish and stupid, not real life. You have to call it out. It helps if you are good enough to beat them a couple of times for your credibility. Secondly, I am so disappointed with this anaysis-paralysis (no brainer) about marijuana reducing crimes, there goes the neighborhood! Somebody please bring these poor people back to the time of the opium wars. As for legislation, when the early settlers came and built their villages, there was no need for legislation to spell out the difference between wrong and right. What was bad was bad forever and what was good was always good. Parents built their families in the wilderness the hard way, the best way!
7.5.2011 | 5:02pm
Tylor says:
Blaming video games for Columbine is narrow minded and irresponsible. Video games, regardless of violence level do not prompt mentally balanced children to go shoot up their school, there are always other factors.
Instead, blame the parents. All of the fault lies with them. The ESRB rates games from E for everyone to 18+ and Adult. To buy 18+ and adult games, you have to be of age to buy those games. If a parent goes out and buys a violent game for a teenager, especially one experiencing any kind of emotional/mental problems, the fault lies with themselves. Columbine's tragedy lies in the fact that no adult, not the parent or teachers or anyone noticed or reached out to these kids.
I've played video games my whole life. Many of the most violent, and often competitive games. I have never hurt anyone, or threatened anyone, and remain a balanced individual. The only thing I've gotten from video games, are increased hand-eye coordination, strengthened problem solving ability, and some solid entertainment, although reading as a child was definitely improved by games like Final Fantasy with it's hours of text.
Stop blaming the games, and start blaming the parents who allow their children to play games out of their accepted age rating. When you buy your child Modern Warfare at the age of 12, you have no one to blame but your self. I play violent games. My children do not.
Instead, blame the parents. All of the fault lies with them. The ESRB rates games from E for everyone to 18+ and Adult. To buy 18+ and adult games, you have to be of age to buy those games. If a parent goes out and buys a violent game for a teenager, especially one experiencing any kind of emotional/mental problems, the fault lies with themselves. Columbine's tragedy lies in the fact that no adult, not the parent or teachers or anyone noticed or reached out to these kids.
I've played video games my whole life. Many of the most violent, and often competitive games. I have never hurt anyone, or threatened anyone, and remain a balanced individual. The only thing I've gotten from video games, are increased hand-eye coordination, strengthened problem solving ability, and some solid entertainment, although reading as a child was definitely improved by games like Final Fantasy with it's hours of text.
Stop blaming the games, and start blaming the parents who allow their children to play games out of their accepted age rating. When you buy your child Modern Warfare at the age of 12, you have no one to blame but your self. I play violent games. My children do not.
7.5.2011 | 6:14pm
MJD says:
A well written article. As a Catholic, I share some common ground. However, I disagree with the California law, and I am satisfied with the Supreme Court decision.
The categorical mistake you make comes from what I think is your core assertion: "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere, and it goes straight into the hearts of our children."
This is actually an error. The violence in these forms of protected expression don't have to "go" anywhere. They come from, come from somewhere. They are the result of a corroding society. A result. An effect. Not a cause. Your thinking about it backwards (as most worried people do). You are asking for the treatment of the symptom, not the cause.
The fact is, those Columbine kids grew up in a house with access to guns, pervasive militaristic, nihilistic attitudes from their mentors. They lived in a city where they trucked nuclear weapons through their town regularly. They became loners and outcasts because of the state of their personal community. Because of the sickness of their upbringing, they were drawn to darker subject matter.
I will grant that art, once it reflects culture, also itself becomes part of the culture, and can then be reflected again, and so on. This is not to let games off the hook, but the Supreme Court decision reminds society to fix the cause, instead of trying to break the mirror that dares show society's own reflection.
Art is never the real problem.
The categorical mistake you make comes from what I think is your core assertion: "common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films, and our television has to go somewhere, and it goes straight into the hearts of our children."
This is actually an error. The violence in these forms of protected expression don't have to "go" anywhere. They come from, come from somewhere. They are the result of a corroding society. A result. An effect. Not a cause. Your thinking about it backwards (as most worried people do). You are asking for the treatment of the symptom, not the cause.
The fact is, those Columbine kids grew up in a house with access to guns, pervasive militaristic, nihilistic attitudes from their mentors. They lived in a city where they trucked nuclear weapons through their town regularly. They became loners and outcasts because of the state of their personal community. Because of the sickness of their upbringing, they were drawn to darker subject matter.
I will grant that art, once it reflects culture, also itself becomes part of the culture, and can then be reflected again, and so on. This is not to let games off the hook, but the Supreme Court decision reminds society to fix the cause, instead of trying to break the mirror that dares show society's own reflection.
Art is never the real problem.
7.5.2011 | 9:54pm
Me says:
Glad to know that history class/books and the Bible were all wrong and that violence never existed until the invention of video games. /sarcasm
To the person blaming bulling on video games, with no proof that the kids even play games.
I got bullied in school, the kid that did it didn't play video games at all, he was beat by his father growing up so he took it out on other people and I happened to be the target. Being a gamer all my life, playing everything from Mortal Kombat to Super Mario. I never lifted a hand at him, nor was I ever in a fight. My parents taught me the difference between right and wrong, not sat me in front of a TV and let it teach me, like so many parents do today, but now it's mostly computers and cell phones.
I have to agree it's more on the parents than it is on the government to know what you are buying for your kids. You don't go buy a new car without asking questions about it, so why would you go buy a game called Grand Theft Auto (GTA) (or any game rated M for mature 18+) without asking the clerk or searching the internet to find out what it is? The name itself should raise a red flag that it's not suitable for kids (being named after a crime).
Although I've talked to people from Gamestop that had parents come in with their kids to buy a game like GTA and the clerk told them what the game was and what you can do in it and the parent basically told them to mind their own business and that they didn't care. I've even seen some say they know what it is, but they are just tired of hearing their kid asking for it so they are buying it for them.
For the reason above and the fact that kids would find some way to get/play the games they want, just like underage drinking, smoking, and porn, they would have someone else of age buy it for them. If they couldn't find someone to buy it, they could always modify their game console to play illegal downloaded copies, or play it at a friends house.
This law would of been pointless. I got cigarettes/snuff from my cousin, which he took from his dad when I was in 6th grade, I'd sneak porn movies from my brother when I was in 7th-8th grade, and just about every one of my friends throughout high school had some way that they could get alcohol any time they wanted (though I didn't drink as I don't like it). The point is, if a kid wants a game bad enough they will find a way to get/play it, just like alcohol, cigarettes, and porn.
Also there are stores that do in fact card everyone that buys an M rated game. My mother, who is 58, got carded at Gamestop when she was buying me an M rated game for my birthday. Also a friend of the family, who is in his 60s and has all white hair, has been carded buying M rated games at some stores around here.
Growing up the way I did and the way some of you people think, I should be a heartless, murdering, alcoholic, raping monster. I'm far from that though, I cringe when stepping on a bug and hearing/feeling it crunch under my foot.
To the person blaming bulling on video games, with no proof that the kids even play games.
I got bullied in school, the kid that did it didn't play video games at all, he was beat by his father growing up so he took it out on other people and I happened to be the target. Being a gamer all my life, playing everything from Mortal Kombat to Super Mario. I never lifted a hand at him, nor was I ever in a fight. My parents taught me the difference between right and wrong, not sat me in front of a TV and let it teach me, like so many parents do today, but now it's mostly computers and cell phones.
I have to agree it's more on the parents than it is on the government to know what you are buying for your kids. You don't go buy a new car without asking questions about it, so why would you go buy a game called Grand Theft Auto (GTA) (or any game rated M for mature 18+) without asking the clerk or searching the internet to find out what it is? The name itself should raise a red flag that it's not suitable for kids (being named after a crime).
Although I've talked to people from Gamestop that had parents come in with their kids to buy a game like GTA and the clerk told them what the game was and what you can do in it and the parent basically told them to mind their own business and that they didn't care. I've even seen some say they know what it is, but they are just tired of hearing their kid asking for it so they are buying it for them.
For the reason above and the fact that kids would find some way to get/play the games they want, just like underage drinking, smoking, and porn, they would have someone else of age buy it for them. If they couldn't find someone to buy it, they could always modify their game console to play illegal downloaded copies, or play it at a friends house.
This law would of been pointless. I got cigarettes/snuff from my cousin, which he took from his dad when I was in 6th grade, I'd sneak porn movies from my brother when I was in 7th-8th grade, and just about every one of my friends throughout high school had some way that they could get alcohol any time they wanted (though I didn't drink as I don't like it). The point is, if a kid wants a game bad enough they will find a way to get/play it, just like alcohol, cigarettes, and porn.
Also there are stores that do in fact card everyone that buys an M rated game. My mother, who is 58, got carded at Gamestop when she was buying me an M rated game for my birthday. Also a friend of the family, who is in his 60s and has all white hair, has been carded buying M rated games at some stores around here.
Growing up the way I did and the way some of you people think, I should be a heartless, murdering, alcoholic, raping monster. I'm far from that though, I cringe when stepping on a bug and hearing/feeling it crunch under my foot.
7.5.2011 | 11:18pm
Jim Bradfield says:
@MJD:
I wouldn't call the Archbishop's article "well written" in the slightest. It may be eloquent, but eloquence does not (or at least should not) substitute for good argument.
Chaput makes blatant appeals to common "knowledge" and emotional reaction, claiming outright that he "[doesn't] need to prove" his most fundamental conclusions "because we all know it. It's common sense." Taking this (already faulty) argument regarding pornography, he applies it by analogy to violence in media. Without a shred of evidence, he claims that violent media is a producer of societal violence; that as a result of exposure to violent media, we must necessarily become more violent; and that sufficient consumption of violent media with inevitably lead a person to commit mass murder.
Appealing to pure emotional outrage, he lays the blame for Columbine squarely at the feet of violent media, especially (given the context) video games. He provides absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion, despite the fact that vastly more qualified individuals have poured vastly more time and effort into the problem than he, and determined that Harris and Klebold were deeply and inherently disturbed, suffering from extreme clinical cases of psychopathy and depression, respectively. And of course, why should he need to provide evidence, when "common sense" already offers such irrefutable proof?
Chaput's argument is built on a tower of falacies: appeals to emotion (remember Columbine!), appeals to widespread belief ("I don't have to prove it, it's common sense), and authority (on the assumption that his position as Archbishop of the Catholic Church gives him license to make unsupported declarations about the sociological impact of media and the legal ramifications thereof). It is not, by any measure, "well written"; if anything, it is an affront to the public discourse.
I wouldn't call the Archbishop's article "well written" in the slightest. It may be eloquent, but eloquence does not (or at least should not) substitute for good argument.
Chaput makes blatant appeals to common "knowledge" and emotional reaction, claiming outright that he "[doesn't] need to prove" his most fundamental conclusions "because we all know it. It's common sense." Taking this (already faulty) argument regarding pornography, he applies it by analogy to violence in media. Without a shred of evidence, he claims that violent media is a producer of societal violence; that as a result of exposure to violent media, we must necessarily become more violent; and that sufficient consumption of violent media with inevitably lead a person to commit mass murder.
Appealing to pure emotional outrage, he lays the blame for Columbine squarely at the feet of violent media, especially (given the context) video games. He provides absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion, despite the fact that vastly more qualified individuals have poured vastly more time and effort into the problem than he, and determined that Harris and Klebold were deeply and inherently disturbed, suffering from extreme clinical cases of psychopathy and depression, respectively. And of course, why should he need to provide evidence, when "common sense" already offers such irrefutable proof?
Chaput's argument is built on a tower of falacies: appeals to emotion (remember Columbine!), appeals to widespread belief ("I don't have to prove it, it's common sense), and authority (on the assumption that his position as Archbishop of the Catholic Church gives him license to make unsupported declarations about the sociological impact of media and the legal ramifications thereof). It is not, by any measure, "well written"; if anything, it is an affront to the public discourse.
7.6.2011 | 12:33am
Arctor says:
Oh boy. Really, people? Only two mentions of the ESRB? Look. Seriously. Never mind for a second bullying, crime statistics, the effects that games have on minors. Never mind for a second the Constitution, freedom of speech, or even the Supreme Court.
The ESRB (or Entertainment Software Rating Board), as others have stated is a self-regulatory body put in place to make sure that all games have accurate ratings (just like movies) to keep parents (and gamers in general) aware of what content you will find in a given game. In addition to providing ratings, the ESRB has made a habit of publishing some of their game reviews on their website to provide additional context outside of the simple phrases that they paste on a game's box art (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=25603&searchkeyword=fire%20emblem).
While it is completely optional to have your games rated by the ESRB, most major retailers will not carry a game if it does not have a rating. Likewise, most major retailers do not carry AO ("Adults Only." These games are usually rated as such for explicit sexual content i.e. porn. As far as I'm aware, there have only been one or two games rated AO for violence alone) in their stores.
They also happen to have this nifty thing called the ESRB Retail Council. What the retail council does is . . . more or less exactly what this bill wanted to do. Except without all the overbroad legal jargon and that hefty $1000 fine.
That is to say that the the ESRBRC's purpose is to:
A) Ensure that there is in-store "rating signage" designed to keep parents informed of the ratings system and what each rating means.
and more importantly
B) Ensure that no M-rated games are sold to minors under 17 at Best Buy, GameStop, Sears, Kmart, Target and Walmart. If you then consider that EB Games is owned by GameStop, you will see that all of the major video games retailers in the United States are covered here.
You can read more about the Retail Council (and see some interesting statistics about their Mystery Shopper program and how successful children generally are at buying M-rated games for themselves) here: http://www.esrb.org/retailers/retail_council.jsp
Now, some would suggest that just because the ESRB has imposed these rules doesn't mean that publishers or retailers will always comply with them. Well, that's true, but they are legally obligated to. They are bound, by legal contract, to the terms upon which they have agreed, and the ESRB can legally impose sanctions and fines upon parties that breech said contract (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#20).
In short, the law that California tried to pass? It's bull. It's bunk. It's completely freaking useless. There are already measures in place to keep the little kiddies from subverting their parents' wills. California was basically telling kids playing soccer in an open lot across the street to stay off its lawn. So all this discussion about the effects of games and whether or not they're to blame for Columbine (supposedly, the perpetrators explicitly said that Doom influenced them, but I'm of the opinion that they were disturbed individuals and would have probably done it either way) or any other amount of violence in the country is pointless unless you are trying to argue that violent video games should be outlawed outright. In which case, I would say to you, "Yes, because we've all seen how well that works with drugs and alcohol."
Oh, also, the FBI says that "violent crime" (defined as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault") has gone down 7.5% between 2000 and 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html). Granted, these are only the cases that were reported, but unless the whole "snitches get stitches" movement has REALLY picked up speed, I'd say these numbers are reliable.
The ESRB (or Entertainment Software Rating Board), as others have stated is a self-regulatory body put in place to make sure that all games have accurate ratings (just like movies) to keep parents (and gamers in general) aware of what content you will find in a given game. In addition to providing ratings, the ESRB has made a habit of publishing some of their game reviews on their website to provide additional context outside of the simple phrases that they paste on a game's box art (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=25603&searchkeyword=fire%20emblem).
While it is completely optional to have your games rated by the ESRB, most major retailers will not carry a game if it does not have a rating. Likewise, most major retailers do not carry AO ("Adults Only." These games are usually rated as such for explicit sexual content i.e. porn. As far as I'm aware, there have only been one or two games rated AO for violence alone) in their stores.
They also happen to have this nifty thing called the ESRB Retail Council. What the retail council does is . . . more or less exactly what this bill wanted to do. Except without all the overbroad legal jargon and that hefty $1000 fine.
That is to say that the the ESRBRC's purpose is to:
A) Ensure that there is in-store "rating signage" designed to keep parents informed of the ratings system and what each rating means.
and more importantly
B) Ensure that no M-rated games are sold to minors under 17 at Best Buy, GameStop, Sears, Kmart, Target and Walmart. If you then consider that EB Games is owned by GameStop, you will see that all of the major video games retailers in the United States are covered here.
You can read more about the Retail Council (and see some interesting statistics about their Mystery Shopper program and how successful children generally are at buying M-rated games for themselves) here: http://www.esrb.org/retailers/retail_council.jsp
Now, some would suggest that just because the ESRB has imposed these rules doesn't mean that publishers or retailers will always comply with them. Well, that's true, but they are legally obligated to. They are bound, by legal contract, to the terms upon which they have agreed, and the ESRB can legally impose sanctions and fines upon parties that breech said contract (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#20).
In short, the law that California tried to pass? It's bull. It's bunk. It's completely freaking useless. There are already measures in place to keep the little kiddies from subverting their parents' wills. California was basically telling kids playing soccer in an open lot across the street to stay off its lawn. So all this discussion about the effects of games and whether or not they're to blame for Columbine (supposedly, the perpetrators explicitly said that Doom influenced them, but I'm of the opinion that they were disturbed individuals and would have probably done it either way) or any other amount of violence in the country is pointless unless you are trying to argue that violent video games should be outlawed outright. In which case, I would say to you, "Yes, because we've all seen how well that works with drugs and alcohol."
Oh, also, the FBI says that "violent crime" (defined as "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault") has gone down 7.5% between 2000 and 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html). Granted, these are only the cases that were reported, but unless the whole "snitches get stitches" movement has REALLY picked up speed, I'd say these numbers are reliable.
7.6.2011 | 1:19am
JWL says:
I'm a teenager and frankly this argument about wether violent video games cause violent or anti-social behaviour has gone on way too long. I keep hearing and seeing people saying that violent games are the cause of such things like the Columbine High School massacre. First of all I dare someone to show me conclusive evidence that video games alone have ever influenced a person to go to such lengths as the Columbine massacre (and no the Columbine massacre is not an example, in fact one of the biggest possible reasons is that, things such as video games were taken away from them which lead to a lack of output for feelings or hurt for them to go to). Also take into account that you cannot blame video games alone due to other contributing factors in this society like movies, tv, books or any other type of media which also could be seen to promote violent behaviour. A study i found recently looks at the decline of crime in the past ten years or so and this directly contradicts people saying that games are influencing people to take their anger out on others or commit crimes. The researcher behind the study has a theory that violent video games are actually helping to decrease the crime rate (which makes sense because the violent games allow an outlet for people to get rid of anger or do certain things without real life consequences). Another thing, good on all the people who said that the things the Archbishop were untrue, it's good to see that there are people out there who actually know what their talking about. One comment that is annoying to me is this one though
-Tim says:
"...In another recent game, Infamous 2, a similar morality meter is given. At one point in the game (Spoiler), you are given the choice to either save a small group of people by doing nothing, or saving millions of people by killing yourself and that small group of people. Killing yourself and the small group of people is considered a "good" choice, while refusing to affirmatively kill is considered the "bad" choice..."
-Now first of all I've played inFamous 2 (amazing game) the decision 'Tim' is talking about is (spoiler) at the end of the game. Where Cole must choose wether to use the RFI killing the Beast but also killing all Conduits (including himself), to cure the Plague and save all other humans (though the characters are somewhat unsure if it will work and get rid of the plague). The other option he has is to side with the Beast and work together to release other conduits powers (Conduits are immune to the Plague) but this can only be done by (technical game stuff here) drawing the neuro-electicity out of surrounding people and focusing it into an individual that is a Conduit. This is done at the cost of the rest of Humanity. The first option is you sacrificing yourself so everyone can live, the second is the safer and selfish of working with (and later becoming) the Beast, dooming everyone except a small amount of people. In a way looking at the options in the game it is actually quite a grey area, outside of the game not so much. 'Tim's point was that games teach children bad morality, the problem is that he didn't look into the problem faced in the game in the required depth. He merely said "oh even the good option involves killing people SO that means games are saying that killing people is good" sorry if that comes off as being a bit rude to 'Tim' but your argument doesn't make sense. Also i don't know if this the same as in the states but in Australia it's mandatory that you show Identification of your age, i had to do it buying inFamous 2. I do it with every game, the only way kids can get their hands on it would be if their parents got it for them and then it's solely the parents fault. One more thing both inFamous and Red Dead Redemption are mature games, not only in the sense of violence but in the stories. Red Dead Redemption is an amazing symbolic story of the fall of the age of the wild west, mans corruption of life due to civilisation and hundreds of sub-plots running through a masterpiece of gaming genres. inFamous looks at morality and what power can do and its consequences through a mix of comic and game storytelling.
I've just realised how much i've written so i will stop here but for the last time can we stop this argument. It makes no sense and the people who fuel it know nothing about it and just want a scapegoat.
-Tim says:
"...In another recent game, Infamous 2, a similar morality meter is given. At one point in the game (Spoiler), you are given the choice to either save a small group of people by doing nothing, or saving millions of people by killing yourself and that small group of people. Killing yourself and the small group of people is considered a "good" choice, while refusing to affirmatively kill is considered the "bad" choice..."
-Now first of all I've played inFamous 2 (amazing game) the decision 'Tim' is talking about is (spoiler) at the end of the game. Where Cole must choose wether to use the RFI killing the Beast but also killing all Conduits (including himself), to cure the Plague and save all other humans (though the characters are somewhat unsure if it will work and get rid of the plague). The other option he has is to side with the Beast and work together to release other conduits powers (Conduits are immune to the Plague) but this can only be done by (technical game stuff here) drawing the neuro-electicity out of surrounding people and focusing it into an individual that is a Conduit. This is done at the cost of the rest of Humanity. The first option is you sacrificing yourself so everyone can live, the second is the safer and selfish of working with (and later becoming) the Beast, dooming everyone except a small amount of people. In a way looking at the options in the game it is actually quite a grey area, outside of the game not so much. 'Tim's point was that games teach children bad morality, the problem is that he didn't look into the problem faced in the game in the required depth. He merely said "oh even the good option involves killing people SO that means games are saying that killing people is good" sorry if that comes off as being a bit rude to 'Tim' but your argument doesn't make sense. Also i don't know if this the same as in the states but in Australia it's mandatory that you show Identification of your age, i had to do it buying inFamous 2. I do it with every game, the only way kids can get their hands on it would be if their parents got it for them and then it's solely the parents fault. One more thing both inFamous and Red Dead Redemption are mature games, not only in the sense of violence but in the stories. Red Dead Redemption is an amazing symbolic story of the fall of the age of the wild west, mans corruption of life due to civilisation and hundreds of sub-plots running through a masterpiece of gaming genres. inFamous looks at morality and what power can do and its consequences through a mix of comic and game storytelling.
I've just realised how much i've written so i will stop here but for the last time can we stop this argument. It makes no sense and the people who fuel it know nothing about it and just want a scapegoat.
7.6.2011 | 3:06am
edmond says:
Having read all the critiques on the article and having posted what I posted about the culprits not being the violent video games but indifferent and inept parents, allow me to state that as a father/gamer you do come to validate the fact that video games are harmful not for the violence but for the way and to the extent they have replaced reality in the minds of kids today. There is nothing constructive about VIOLENT video games and there really are better things to do.
7.6.2011 | 7:14am
Jakob Bloch says:
James Heaney makes an interesting legal argument.
If you strictly follow the wording of the first amendment, SCOTUS has no real jurisdiction over this law. This however creates some moral issues. By those standards any state would be able to outlaw the press, free speech, any religion or any other things covered by the first amendment. So for the first amendment to have any meaning we must interpret "Congress" as "the goverment" or "Congress and the legislatures".
Joseph Vanderhulst is indeed correct on the bounds of the law being challenged. However there is more to it then that. Lets start with what games the law would cover. It doesn't say. It has some vague guidelines, but nothing on who would make the determination of whether a game was too violent or not. Nor does it address how this process would work, so the industry has no idea what would be ok and what would not (the gaming industry does a lot of tweaking to their games to get them the ESRB rating they want. This tweaking is done because the ESRB rating process is well understood). So a game that is aimed at people in their late teens may be denied the "underaged approved" stamp and thus bomb completely.
Beyond this is a more general stifling effect the law would have on video gamesin general. The law came with a fine of 1000$ every time the law was broken. A just punishment you might say. Lets say however a store sells 100 of those violent games. 10 under aged people try to buy the game and we assume the store is as effective with this new rating system as with ESRB so 2 games get sold to under aged people. That is a 2000$ fine. Lets be generous and say he makes 17 dollars per game, in which case the store would have to sell 118 games just to break even. He can't do that so he chooses not to stock the game. So the developer chooses not to make the game. And the choices of all gamers (and parents) everywhere gets cut. It is indirect censorship effectively making computer games into a children only media which in turn costs hundreds and thousands of jobs.
This is not to mention the extreme potential for video games. No media can as of yet boast video games ability to make political, social and philosophical commentary.
If you strictly follow the wording of the first amendment, SCOTUS has no real jurisdiction over this law. This however creates some moral issues. By those standards any state would be able to outlaw the press, free speech, any religion or any other things covered by the first amendment. So for the first amendment to have any meaning we must interpret "Congress" as "the goverment" or "Congress and the legislatures".
Joseph Vanderhulst is indeed correct on the bounds of the law being challenged. However there is more to it then that. Lets start with what games the law would cover. It doesn't say. It has some vague guidelines, but nothing on who would make the determination of whether a game was too violent or not. Nor does it address how this process would work, so the industry has no idea what would be ok and what would not (the gaming industry does a lot of tweaking to their games to get them the ESRB rating they want. This tweaking is done because the ESRB rating process is well understood). So a game that is aimed at people in their late teens may be denied the "underaged approved" stamp and thus bomb completely.
Beyond this is a more general stifling effect the law would have on video gamesin general. The law came with a fine of 1000$ every time the law was broken. A just punishment you might say. Lets say however a store sells 100 of those violent games. 10 under aged people try to buy the game and we assume the store is as effective with this new rating system as with ESRB so 2 games get sold to under aged people. That is a 2000$ fine. Lets be generous and say he makes 17 dollars per game, in which case the store would have to sell 118 games just to break even. He can't do that so he chooses not to stock the game. So the developer chooses not to make the game. And the choices of all gamers (and parents) everywhere gets cut. It is indirect censorship effectively making computer games into a children only media which in turn costs hundreds and thousands of jobs.
This is not to mention the extreme potential for video games. No media can as of yet boast video games ability to make political, social and philosophical commentary.
7.6.2011 | 10:48am
The Ghost says:
The bottom line is this, take responsibility for your children. If you don't want you're kid playing violent games, don't buy them for them. If you're kid plays them at a friend's house discipline them for disobeying you; however, the more off-limits you make fictional violence to your children, the harder it will be for them to deal with it later in life. It's important for parents to help their children learn the difference between reality and fiction. I've played violent video games since I was 5 years old, I have never struck another human being. Legislation should not be used in place of parenting.
7.6.2011 | 5:49pm
Aaron M. Long says:
Video games are the modern culture scapegoat, just like loud rock music was for an earlier generation. There's no real evidence linking exposure to video games (violent or otherwise) with criminal behavior. There is medical evidence linking the antidepressants that Harris was prescribed for his depression to increases in aggression, loss of remorse, and mania.
So what's more likely? That these kids were inspired to commit mass murder by a video game that millions of teens have been exposed to with nary an ill effect, or that the potent mind-altering agents he was prescribed made him overlook the fatal consequences of his actions?
So what's more likely? That these kids were inspired to commit mass murder by a video game that millions of teens have been exposed to with nary an ill effect, or that the potent mind-altering agents he was prescribed made him overlook the fatal consequences of his actions?
7.6.2011 | 6:40pm
JDD says:
David Nickol,
"I don't know how seriously (if at all) to take the study below, but violent video games are fantasy violence, and overeating is real eating. What about fantasy eating? Does it make you hungrier or less hungry?"
Anger and hunger are both natural reactions which can be either under one's control, or not. Overeating and violence are both out-of-control passions. And yes, by the way, I absolutely *do* think that thinking about eating makes one hungry. It doesn't 'satisfy the desire for eating.' Try thinking about a steak, and see what happens to your appetite.
Here seems to be a difference between our base assumptions: I don't believe that 'fantasy violence' has no effect on the psyche, any more than I believe that 'fantasy eating' has no affect on the appetite. If this is your position, then you'd also have to argue by extension that doing it in 'make believe' somehow disengages and 'protects' the psyche. Do you believe this? Why do you believe this? Is there any reason why the psyche should discontinue learning patterns of action simply because the physical responses are not carried out?
Yes, the instant 'fantasy' event doesn't occur in real life - but that isn't my point and I don't think it's the point of the essay. The point is, does it dispose one to carry out violence in real life? Conversely, can we say with conviction that it has _absolutely no effect at all?_ If we can't bring ourself to make that second statement, then aren't we saying that we detect some evidence to the contrary?
"Having a short-term catharsis that you resort to again and again amounts to a long-term solution. One of the things some people argue is that video games are addictive. Well, the more of your time you spend playing video games, the less of your time you spend doing other things."
Yes, I thought of that too - I suppose as long as they stay playing, we have nothing to worry about. If however we agree that video games are addictive, then the next clear question is, what happens if I find myself in the 'real world' and I get a craving? Or I just get really, really ripped about something that happened, or that keeps happening, at work. Or someone cuts me off in heavy traffic, then gives me the finger.
I'm very serious about these scenarios. The concept of the 'default option' comes to mind - the reflex you train yourself for in the event you don't have time to think in a situation that demands an immediate response. It seems to me there's somewhat of a parallel here. What default option - my most natural, reflexive, fallback response - is being formed by playing a game in which my goal is to kill (realistically) as many other opponents as possible - or, in another case, as many innocent pedestrians as possible?
I can't preface any of this with, " I used to play violent video games and I turned out fine," or anything like that. I pretty much got turned off right around the time Motal Kombat decided that it was funny to slit a throat onscreen.
I do know, however, that Christ was absolutely right when, speaking about the commandment against killing, he went on to say, "Anyone who grows angry at his brother without cause is liable to judgement." Matt 5:22 Although I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, here it is spot on - "This verse asserts that just as great a crime as murder itself, is the anger that leads to it." This rings true with me, and I bet I'm not the only one. I think we've all experienced this - that when we think about getting even with someone 'in our mind' - even doing harm to them 'in fantasy' - to a small, (or maybe not so small,) extent we'd rather not admit, we kind of mean it.
I am currently reading an interesting book called "The Angry Christian" by someone named Bert Ghezzi. So far quite good.
http://www.amazon.com/Angry-Christian-Control-Your-Anger/dp/0819807613
"I don't know how seriously (if at all) to take the study below, but violent video games are fantasy violence, and overeating is real eating. What about fantasy eating? Does it make you hungrier or less hungry?"
Anger and hunger are both natural reactions which can be either under one's control, or not. Overeating and violence are both out-of-control passions. And yes, by the way, I absolutely *do* think that thinking about eating makes one hungry. It doesn't 'satisfy the desire for eating.' Try thinking about a steak, and see what happens to your appetite.
Here seems to be a difference between our base assumptions: I don't believe that 'fantasy violence' has no effect on the psyche, any more than I believe that 'fantasy eating' has no affect on the appetite. If this is your position, then you'd also have to argue by extension that doing it in 'make believe' somehow disengages and 'protects' the psyche. Do you believe this? Why do you believe this? Is there any reason why the psyche should discontinue learning patterns of action simply because the physical responses are not carried out?
Yes, the instant 'fantasy' event doesn't occur in real life - but that isn't my point and I don't think it's the point of the essay. The point is, does it dispose one to carry out violence in real life? Conversely, can we say with conviction that it has _absolutely no effect at all?_ If we can't bring ourself to make that second statement, then aren't we saying that we detect some evidence to the contrary?
"Having a short-term catharsis that you resort to again and again amounts to a long-term solution. One of the things some people argue is that video games are addictive. Well, the more of your time you spend playing video games, the less of your time you spend doing other things."
Yes, I thought of that too - I suppose as long as they stay playing, we have nothing to worry about. If however we agree that video games are addictive, then the next clear question is, what happens if I find myself in the 'real world' and I get a craving? Or I just get really, really ripped about something that happened, or that keeps happening, at work. Or someone cuts me off in heavy traffic, then gives me the finger.
I'm very serious about these scenarios. The concept of the 'default option' comes to mind - the reflex you train yourself for in the event you don't have time to think in a situation that demands an immediate response. It seems to me there's somewhat of a parallel here. What default option - my most natural, reflexive, fallback response - is being formed by playing a game in which my goal is to kill (realistically) as many other opponents as possible - or, in another case, as many innocent pedestrians as possible?
I can't preface any of this with, " I used to play violent video games and I turned out fine," or anything like that. I pretty much got turned off right around the time Motal Kombat decided that it was funny to slit a throat onscreen.
I do know, however, that Christ was absolutely right when, speaking about the commandment against killing, he went on to say, "Anyone who grows angry at his brother without cause is liable to judgement." Matt 5:22 Although I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, here it is spot on - "This verse asserts that just as great a crime as murder itself, is the anger that leads to it." This rings true with me, and I bet I'm not the only one. I think we've all experienced this - that when we think about getting even with someone 'in our mind' - even doing harm to them 'in fantasy' - to a small, (or maybe not so small,) extent we'd rather not admit, we kind of mean it.
I am currently reading an interesting book called "The Angry Christian" by someone named Bert Ghezzi. So far quite good.
http://www.amazon.com/Angry-Christian-Control-Your-Anger/dp/0819807613
7.7.2011 | 5:06am
Chiara says:
Ever noticed that little label on the box of each videogame, that explains if the videogame you are buying is suitable for a certain age group and what kind of content "objectionable" it contains?
That little label is there for you, so would you please read it before complaining?
If parents are allowing children to play games only suitable for adults, or they are letting them go alone in video games stores with enough money to buy games by themselves, without supervision (and games are not cheap these days) - well, perhaps it might be a case of bad parenting, rather than videogames being the source of all evil?
If they can't see the label because they downloaded games from the internet, that's not only bad parenting, but also a crime.
For those who are parents, have children that like videogames and genuinely didn't know about the age rating label, please, do read this http://www.esrb.org/ - it's the Entertainment Software Rating Board website and it explains the meaning of each label.
Can we please stop limiting freedom of expression and blaming things we don't know well, and start taking our responsibilities?
Thanks.
That little label is there for you, so would you please read it before complaining?
If parents are allowing children to play games only suitable for adults, or they are letting them go alone in video games stores with enough money to buy games by themselves, without supervision (and games are not cheap these days) - well, perhaps it might be a case of bad parenting, rather than videogames being the source of all evil?
If they can't see the label because they downloaded games from the internet, that's not only bad parenting, but also a crime.
For those who are parents, have children that like videogames and genuinely didn't know about the age rating label, please, do read this http://www.esrb.org/ - it's the Entertainment Software Rating Board website and it explains the meaning of each label.
Can we please stop limiting freedom of expression and blaming things we don't know well, and start taking our responsibilities?
Thanks.
7.8.2011 | 7:07am
SMalone says:
@Chiara: Thanks for the tip. Having raised four children, I'm very well aware of the ESRB, its ratings, and their limitations; and also how easy it is to get around them; and also, as Alito noted, that the industry only created them under intense pressure and enforces them inadequately. Freedom of expression is important, but nobody made it the Golden Calf. You might be a bit more cautious in assuming the ignorance of the other side in this issue.
7.8.2011 | 12:23pm
Dave says:
Here's an anecdotal and I will readily admit, non-scientific point for reflection, I worked in a volunteer prison ministry in Texas for over 10 years. During that period, the older, long time inmates grew increasingly wary if not apprehensive around the new and much younger arrivals into the system. They cited them as much more prone to violence, unconcerned about taking a life or placing any value on their own lives, and generally unwilling and/or unable to control impulse behavior. I'm not suggesting any direct connection between this phenomenon and the availability of fantasy violence...just observing that the younger generation in our penal facilities is much more prone to violence once they're there.
Regarding Archbishop Chaput comments, he refers to David Grossman in his remarks. Grossman is a former Army Ranger and combat veteran who's perspective may be worth considering. Actually, I'd recommend another book of his entitled "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill " to anyone who wants to explore some scientific study-driven connections (straight-line or crooked) between fantasy violence and actual...read and reflect on it.
David Nickol, you seem like you're approaching this with some seriousness...If you want to draw conclusions on the connectio0ns between causal factors in crime, I'd suggest you pay less attention to macro-crime statistics which can be manipulated and misinterpreted, as is the case with all statistics...and pay more attention to micro factors in specific crimes.
Regarding Archbishop Chaput comments, he refers to David Grossman in his remarks. Grossman is a former Army Ranger and combat veteran who's perspective may be worth considering. Actually, I'd recommend another book of his entitled "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill " to anyone who wants to explore some scientific study-driven connections (straight-line or crooked) between fantasy violence and actual...read and reflect on it.
David Nickol, you seem like you're approaching this with some seriousness...If you want to draw conclusions on the connectio0ns between causal factors in crime, I'd suggest you pay less attention to macro-crime statistics which can be manipulated and misinterpreted, as is the case with all statistics...and pay more attention to micro factors in specific crimes.
7.13.2011 | 12:54am
Frankie Mclean says:
This is my country! I want you culture warriors to surrender! Leave my video games alone? Quit trying to change my country! I don't want to go back to the 1950s!
8.18.2011 | 1:37am
Aipopo Abby says:
It is perfectly understandable in the aftermath of a tragedy like Columbine that people look for some reason or cause to make at least some sense out of what happened. But that doesn't mean they are right. We see a similar phenomenon with parents whose children turn out to be autistic and want to believe vaccination was the cause. But it would be mistaken to base social policy on these kinds of emotional reactions. There is no proof that the Columbine killers were in any way motivated by playing violent video games, and in fact there are theories that they became aggressive in the real world because video games were taken away from them. My first impression after taking the Times article you cited at face value, is that it doesn't really seem to be that sure of its own conclusions - do you agree? Reading down the article, you start to get the sense that there's just a hodgepodge of disorganized statistics, some of which say one thing, then another. Crime is trending down - except in New York where rapes have increased 25% (!) And in San Antonio. And, oh yeah, in Philly violent crime is up... so I'd have to see a more organized paper on the subject. And what's our definition of 'violent' crime?
11.14.2011 | 3:16pm
AKO says:
@Tim
"The Supreme Court was right to find that video games convey messages: they can teach children bad morality. The games I mentioned above are labeled for adults, but I'm sure children can easily get their hands on it. Unfortunately, now parents are on their own to ensure that those bad messages don't reach their children."
Couldn't the same be said about any form of media or form of expression however? TV shows with barely covered women dancing around convey messages. Movies in which the hero is forced to kill the "bad guy" in defense convey a message. A historic panting conveys a message. Why is it that video games always have to be the whipping boy when it should be up to the parents to be a guide in the children's development. If people who are thinking about being a parent won't have the time to do such a task, perhaps they should reconsider having a child instead of having a child and blaming video games.
"The Supreme Court was right to find that video games convey messages: they can teach children bad morality. The games I mentioned above are labeled for adults, but I'm sure children can easily get their hands on it. Unfortunately, now parents are on their own to ensure that those bad messages don't reach their children."
Couldn't the same be said about any form of media or form of expression however? TV shows with barely covered women dancing around convey messages. Movies in which the hero is forced to kill the "bad guy" in defense convey a message. A historic panting conveys a message. Why is it that video games always have to be the whipping boy when it should be up to the parents to be a guide in the children's development. If people who are thinking about being a parent won't have the time to do such a task, perhaps they should reconsider having a child instead of having a child and blaming video games.
12.20.2011 | 5:18pm
Robert Johannesburg says:
I think this should be more about the responsibility of parents, rather than their rights. It is the parent's job to keep their child(ren) healthy and happy. For me, this means limiting the amount of time in front of screens, whether it be for a television show, a video game (violent or otherwise), or a computer screen. There are so many other things to do: yard games as a family. Walks. Bike Rides. Not only will this protect developing brains from damaging video games, but it will also protect children against the childhood obesity epidemic.
5.6.2012 | 3:00pm
Mamalion says:
I know I am late to the game but I came across this article while writing a paper for school and I chose this topic because it is an issue in my home right now. I keep hearing that it is up to the parents to ensure that their kids don't play the games if they do not approve and I agree. However, the issue I am having is the fact that it seems many parents do not see anything wrong with games like Call of Duty for a nine year old and I find out after the fact that he has been playing that very game at more than one of his friends homes, with their parents knowledge. I can talk with my child and talk with those parents but that is no guarantee that my child will not become exposed to them again. Just last weekend I had to make my child come home on a Sunday afternoon because his friends wanted to play the game and he called me to say "Mom I promise I won't play and I'll look at something else while they play". So of course I am the "mean, witch" of a mother because I do not feel that my nine year old should be hunting down people and killing them in cold blood in a game.
Additionally, AKO, to say that if we ban this from video games we would have to ban it from all forms of media is a completely unfair statement simply because when you read or hear something you are taking it in through one form of sensory. When you play an interactive video game you are stimulating multiple senses and you becoming engrossed in that activity. The two cannot be compared.
Additionally, AKO, to say that if we ban this from video games we would have to ban it from all forms of media is a completely unfair statement simply because when you read or hear something you are taking it in through one form of sensory. When you play an interactive video game you are stimulating multiple senses and you becoming engrossed in that activity. The two cannot be compared.
2.5.2013 | 2:04pm
Ron Z says:
Many of these games are little more than movement and shooting and ringing up a score for kills. They offer no alternative to violence and no negative consequences for using violence all the time. The developers are catering to a 14-year old mentality and have warped the industries customers into a very narrow flavor of game experience..
And its not just killing violence against zombies and nazis, there are games like Bioshock (company 2KGames) where you
murder children for advantage.
Games with M for mature get into the hands of much younger children or they watch others play them. Banning them is one
thing, but how about offering games with sufficient workable non-violent alternatives and consequences of action closer to the real world ???
And its not just killing violence against zombies and nazis, there are games like Bioshock (company 2KGames) where you
murder children for advantage.
Games with M for mature get into the hands of much younger children or they watch others play them. Banning them is one
thing, but how about offering games with sufficient workable non-violent alternatives and consequences of action closer to the real world ???
However, some of these "good" choices involve killing other characters. For example, in the popular game Red Dead Redemption, you play as a outlaw-cowboy type character that wanders the turn of the century West. Occasionally situations occur which give you the option to save a passer-by in the game, such as recovering a stolen horse from a fleeing thief. However, it doesn't take into account how you deal with the situation. Your action is still considered good even if you shoot and kill the horse thief.
In another recent game, Infamous 2, a similar morality meter is given. At one point in the game (Spoiler), you are given the choice to either save a small group of people by doing nothing, or saving millions of people by killing yourself and that small group of people. Killing yourself and the small group of people is considered a "good" choice, while refusing to affirmatively kill is considered the "bad" choice.
The Supreme Court was right to find that video games convey messages: they can teach children bad morality. The games I mentioned above are labeled for adults, but I'm sure children can easily get their hands on it. Unfortunately, now parents are on their own to ensure that those bad messages don't reach their children.