Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Background and context

The US Supreme Court ruled in June of 2011 against California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. The California law would have imposed $1,000 fines on stores that sold violent video games to anyone under 18. The ruling highlights what is a much larger, national and international debate regarding the effect of violent video games on youth, and the potential need, subsequently, for the regulation of their sale. The California law defined violent games as those 'in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being' in a way that was 'patently offensive,' appealed to minors’ 'deviant or morbid interests' and lacked 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.'"[1] Accepting that this description of violent video games may be true, the debate about banning them relates largely to the limits of free speech and government censorship.

Arguments

Pro

  • Violent game ban puts children above corporations. Leland Yee, a California state senator who wrote the law, said in a statement that “the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”[2]
  • Some games so offensive they are certainly harmful to youth. Justice Alito: “The objective of one game is to rape a mother and her daughters [...] players attempt to fire a rifle shot into the head of President Kennedy as his motorcade passes by the Texas School Book Depository.” He also added that children may soon play three-dimensional high-definition games wearing equipment that allows them to “feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head” of a victim.[3]
  • Legislators have grounds to conclude harm to children. Justice Breyer: “Unlike the majority. I would find sufficient grounds in these studies and expert opinions for this court to defer to an elected legislature’s conclusion that the video games in question are particularly likely to harm children.”[4]
  • Ban makes parents' job easier. Tamika Mallory. "Failure To Ban Violent Video Games Makes Job Harder For Parents." News One. July 1, 2011: "As a mother of a teenage son, I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve walked into a room and turned off a video game or TV program that I felt was inappropriate for a still developing child. But despite how often I pull the plug or refuse to let him buy certain products, the reality is that our Supreme Court just made my job and the job of other parents that much more difficult. Ruling on Monday that violent and dangerous video games could not be banned to minors, the Supreme Court in essence said to all of us: you’re on your own."
  • Most violent games unequal to violent fairy tales. Ian Mitroff. "It's a Grim Day for Our Children." Huffington Post. June 30th, 2011: "In equating the violence in the Grimm fairy tales with that of video games, the Court committed a grievous error in arguing that free speech protected the producers of violent video games. In short, the Court's argument is that if we shouldn't ban fairytales because they contain violence, then we shouldn't ban video games, as well. The argument is false, because neither the violence nor the purpose of the two is even remotely the same. Adults generally read fairy tales to young children so that adults both mediate and interpret the violence. Most important of all, unlike in video games, children do not cause the violence themselves. The Grimm brothers did not invent, but brought together and embellished the fairy tales that had already existed in European culture for hundreds of years. In other words, fairy tales were spontaneous creations of the human psyche. They were not created for the 'marketplace.'"

Con

  • Violent video games are defended by the first amendment. Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion defending the June 2011 Supreme Court ruling against the California ban on the sale of video games to minors: "Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."[5]
  • Depictions of violence not category exempted from free speech. Only a few kinds of speech, like incitement, obscenity and fighting words, are beyond the protection of the First Amendment, according to Justice Scalia, adding that the court would not lightly create new excluded categories.[6]
  • Violent games don't have clear "harm" to kids. Justice Scalia opinion: “No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."[7]

Pro/con sources

Pro


Con

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.