Lolly pops and violent video games
November 3rd 2010 08:14
:
Vyoos news
VYOOS EDITORIAL
They are trying to make the sale of video games containing graphic violence illegal in California to people under 18.
Plenty of people are pushing the process, saying kids of all ages play video games these days and who in their right mind could be comfortable with a legal system which condones eight-year-olds having unfettered access to games which contain violence?
Who could dispute that?
Well, one group which is isn't convinced, and which is putting up some interesting counter-arguments, is the judges who comprise the United States Supreme Court.
They don't like the "vagueness" of the proposed California law, which sounds like something which can be discussed and addressed. But secondly, and much more crucially, they fear the law conflicts with the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it this way, "If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games?''
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "You're asking us to create ... a whole new prohibition which the American people never, never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment.''
What the judges are concerned about is an apparent free speech double-standard, in that the California law appears to limit violent video games while ignoring the violence minors experience in other media such as online, in movies, in music and in books.
Justice Scalia repeated a crucial point: many children's books use violence to demonstrate that being bad doesn't pay. "Some of Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth,'' Scalia remarked.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to a study said that watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon had the same effect on minors that playing a violent video game did.
"So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?'' she asked.
Think also comic books. Think kapow! Think comeuppance factor.
As often is the case with these debates, there can be legal, political or social mandates on both sides, and common sense can get squeezed out the back door.
There aren't enough headlines in common sense.
So let's let common sense have a say here. Is it common sense to leave violent video games around for kids to find? Of course it isn't.
Is it common sense to think kids will access violent video games despite the best efforts of parents, teachers, politicians and police to prevent them doing so. Of course it is. The more you hide something, the more attrractive it becomes.
Is it common sense to do everything you can, including legal imperatives, to ensure that any underage kid can not access violent video games? No, it isn't.
Apart from the legal arguments above (and in the US anything that might compromise the First Amendment is a very serious legal argument indeed), and apart from political self-agendas from the Our Kids Are Pure and Sacred lobby, one has to ask what a law banning access by minors to violent video games would achieve.
It certainly won't prevent access by minors to violent video games. The games will still be out there, legally accessible by parents, older siblings, and anyone with an internet connection who knows where to find free copies on the net. Which is, like, you know, every teenager.
Then there's the life lesson argument. If this law is passed, and we somehow effectively prevent every individual viewing video violence until the day they turn 18, we are going to have some shocked and shaken 18-year-olds walking around. Is this the way to prepare kids for the rigours of the real world?
Kids are tougher than many people give them credit for, and they need to be. Surely it is common sense to let them learn some of life's harsher, uglier lessons in their time and in their space.
If an eight-year-old is old enough to find a violent video game, he or she is old enough to start learning perspectives associated with it. The first lesson, that the world isn't full of lolly pops and mum can't, in fact, kiss everything better, can be a hard one, but it's better learned sooner rather than later.
| 57 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
