The Supreme Court has decided to take up an interesting case this year. For a long time, some states have argued that it is their job to regulate the video game industry so that violent games stay out of the hands of youngsters. They argue that, like pornography, it is the governments responsibility to step in and make sure minors are protected from the repercussions of early exposure to violence. Now, the high court will decide once and for all whether this governmental regulation is constitutional. I think that this is an interesting topic, so have decided to share my opinions with you.
One of the issues at the heart of this matter is the definition of inappropriate content presented by the plaintiffs:
"The California law makes it an offense punishable by $1,000 each time a violent video is sold to a minor. The definition of a banned violent video is one that includes, 'killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,' in a way that is 'patently offensive,' appeals to a, 'deviant or morbid interest' and lacks 'serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.'"*
The problem, as I see it, is the subjective nature of this wording, and how different aspects of the law could be twisted so that almost any game would qualify as inappropriate. As an example of how something so subjective can be misconstrued, look at how CNN's version of this wording is different (probably quoted from a different portion of the law):
"It also defined such games that would 'appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards.'"***
While the former NPR quote makes it obvious violence needs to be involved for the law to apply, the latter CNN quote could be interpreted so that games that include farting and burping would be similarly censored. Even if the former version is used, it could be interpreted so that classics like Mike Tyson's Punch Out, where human figures are repeatedly "maimed" (think King Hippo with his pants around his ankles and birdies flying around his head) would qualify as too mature for children under 18.
Should the voluntary rating system that video game producers use be enough? "The industry has set up a board to rate the games and penalize manufacturers and marketers who violate the code. And he points out that when the Federal Trade Commission sent testers out to evaluate compliance with entertainment rating systems overall, the video game industry came in first, with the highest compliance rate — 80 percent."* "By comparison, 28 percent of kids were able to purchase R-rated movie tickets without help and 54 percent of them were able to rent such movies, according to the undercover test, which was conducted in 1,250 movie theaters and shops."** Yet, "The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children when the industry has failed to do so."***
Who would be responsible for rating all of these games? I'm sure the state of California, with its billion dollar deficit, is in no position to add another dozen employees to its payroll. Nor is my indebted state of Illinois, and I would have to argue that most states in our economically challenged union would echo my sentiments. The federal government? The last thing we need is more federal spending! And, if the rating is left to the video game industry, well I would refer you to the paragraph above.
What about the argument that violent video games are equivalent to pornography, and thus in a special category outside of first amendment rights? The problem with this theory, in my opinion, is that society has drawn a general consensus of what constitutes sex, but our idea of what is violent falls along a much wider spectrum.
There are portions of the states position that I agree with. I do think that video games are different from movies and books, because they are interactive. In fact, psychologist have found that people who play games for long periods have vivid, controllable dreams much more often than non-gamers. I believe that this is because of the interactive, personal nature of controlling avatars in video games.
I also agree with the social scientists on the states side, in their assessment of children becoming desensitized to blood and gore from obsessively playing violent games. However, I do not think that this desensitization leads to violent behavior. Just because seeing fake blood splashed all over a tub doesn't make a child queasy, doesn't mean said child desires to replicate the scene.
Furthermore, I know for a fact that video games in general can "engender poor school performance." The 2nd grader I babysit for received a Nintendo Wii for his seventh birthday in July. Since School started at the end of August, he has begun cheating on his homework. After telling his parents that he didn't have any and proceeding to play Star Wars Legos for hours, he then went to school the next morning and allowed a classmate to do his assignment for him. He got caught. Twice.
This child is now permanently grounded from video games during the school week. His parents stepped in, and realized how badly their decision to allow him to play after school had "engendered his school performance." Thus, they modified their sons activities so as not to include any video games during the week. Now, he feels no need to rush through, or skip altogether, his homework.
This story is actually an excellent example of what I believe is the proper course of action regarding this case in general. If the question is, "Should violent video games be kept out of the hands of children?" I think the obvious answer is yes. But I do not believe it is the government, or retailers job to make sure this is the case. It is the parents.
I believe what is considered "violent content" should not be up to some government censorship office, but rather an individual child's parents. Video games cost $60 a pop, and the consoles to play them on five times as much. Children are not making these purchases without the financial support of their parents. The voluntary ratings video game producers use should tell parents enough to provide guidance as to what is appropriate for their child. If playing video games seems to make a child more aggressive, it is up to the parents to restrict playing.
Overall, I see this case as an excellent opportunity for the high court to shift responsibility to where it belongs - at home with the parents. With digital downloads becoming more and more prevalent, soon retailers shelves will be as bare of games as they currently are of CD's. When that happens, there will be no more middle-man available to do the parent's job, anyway.
*California Pushes To Uphold Ban On Violent Video Games (NPR, by Nina Totenberg, 11/2/2010)
** Need to know: violent video games and the U.S. Supreme Court (CNN, by John D. Sutter, 11/2/2010)
*** Court weighs state law banning 'violent' video games from children (CNN, by Bill Mears, 11/2/2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment