Saturday, October 30, 2010

Should the Government Ban Minors from Buying Violent Video Games?

Next Tuesday, two wonderful expressions of our democratic government will take place.  For millions of us, Tuesday will be the day we vote for our U.S. Congressional Representatives and a host of other state or local officials (the others, I'm sure, have already voted by early ballot).  Meanwhile, in our nation's capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments about whether or not the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution extend to video games.

On Tuesday, November 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), which deals with a 2005 California law that restricts the sale of certain violent video games to people under 18.  The law was overturned by the California courts for being unconstitutional, but the US Supreme Court agreed to consider the matter when the state of California appealed the decision.


On one side of the issue are various parent groups, who cite studies that linke playing violent video games to actual acts of violence, and argue that we should restrict children's access to such dangerous items just as we refuse to allow them to buy cigarettes or alcohol.  On the other side are civil libertarians and media groups, particularly the game developers themselves, who argue that with their ever-increasing ability for interaction and interconnectivity between players, video games are a growing means of self-expression for tweens and teens, and denying them access to that media runs counter to their constitutional rights, which have been re-affirmed in regards to books.

For our particular family, this matter is not really an issue; we don't own any game consoles, my son doesn't play many video games, and he doesn't enjoy violent games or activities in general, so I can't see him getting into such games whether or not they were banned.  And I can certainly understand the arguments of the proponents of the law.  I highly recommend the book Stop Teaching Our Children to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria Degaetano, which makes a chilling case that time spent on violent video games (some of which were adapted from military sharpshooter training materials) not only numbs children to violence but gives them the skills to shoot with deadly accuracy, and was a factor in the mass school killings such as Columbine.

However, while I can't speak from personal experience, it also seems that the video games industry is evolving and has created some interesting games that lead players through the consequences of such violence.  The game industry puts forth examples of more-nuanced violent games as "Darfur Is Dying," where the player tries to avoid being killed by militias while in a refugee camp, "BioShock," where the game deals with genetically modified people being used in a bad system that players can choose to either profit from or rebel against, or "Fable 2," where players face the ultimate ethical dilemma--whether they will save only their immediate family from death, or sacrifice their family to save thousands of innocent lives.  Such games, according to game developers, actually allow teens to confront the moral issues surrounding violence and give them better coping skills if faced with violence in their real lives.

So in the end, I have to come down against the proposed law.  I think it would inhibit the free speech that mature middle schoolers and teens should be having about these issues.  And I am always reluctant to restrict civil liberties, which I think are already under seige with the threat of international terrorism.

So if Chief Justice Roberts were to ask my opinion as a parent, I would say the Supreme Court should uphold the lower court decision ruling the law as being unconstitution.  What would you say if he were to ask you?

11 comments:

  1. At the very least, the age you are allowed to buy games should never be higher than the age of consent ;-)

    It always amuses me when young families, sometimes with kids, are legally barred from that or this activity based on their age.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The age in the California law being contested was 17 and below. But there are plenty of 17-year-old parents....

    ReplyDelete
  3. In general, I am opposed to age-based restrictions of anything whatsoever, but the system I'd like to see (merit-based) is not currently feasible. It's only partially implemented in the system of driver licenses, and even that is age restricted on top of merit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, that is true in the legal/political world. But I know you spend a lot of time in the game world, where I think that is the case (merit vs. age-based distinctions).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Age is an average, and biologically, the variety is huge. Socially too, and psychologically. It just makes very little scientific sense to tie anything to age - though it is rather easy to measure. What's easy to measure is not necessarily meaningful.

    True about games and online in general. http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. Correction: it makes little sense to tie anything about INDIVIDUALS to age. It is very appropriate to make statistical (population-wide) statements about age, but not statements about individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But the use of age is a traditional measure (even if what is expected of different ages has changed dramatically over the centuries), and the Constitution is, indeed, traditional.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now I want to look at how different cultures dealt with age within their traditions. Some did not count time, so those would not measure age either. Some had very definite rules, others guidelines. The following search brings some funny stuff:
    age "social construct"

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's big topic. But my understanding of traditional/earth-based cultures is that the option for various rites of passage was based on physical changes, such as young women menstrating and young men...well, I don't know exactly what...maybe reaching a particular height or voice changes or something? But you sure see incredible physical changes among boys my son's age (almost 12), give or take a year.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Give or take five-seven years? I am not even sure it's normally distributed.

    Here's some menarche data. They (rather randomly) call 12-13 "ideal" - who knows why...

    http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_biological_anthropology/volume_3_number_2_59/article_printable/a-study-of-age-at-menarche-the-secular-trend-and-factors-associated-with-it.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hmmm, interesting article (although the way they kept switching their units confused me...). But I wasn't speaking scientifically; it's just that so many of my friends with slightly older boys have seen their sons shoot up in growth around their 12th or 13th year.

    ReplyDelete