I feel like this blog is a little bit of an extension of last week's blog. I ran across an editorial from the New York Times this week that looked back on the 2005 attempt of California to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. I had actually forgotten about the media coverage of this bombshell decision.
Now, I abhor the gratuitously violent video games. I do not play them nor would I approve of the younger children in my family being exposed to them. However, the First Amendment does not mandate my approval of an item for it to be acceptable in the open market.
I called this an extension of last week's blog because it was another example of an attempt to censor ideas through lack of access. I don't really want these games in the hands of children either, but it isn't the place of the government to put those types of restrictions onto children. Nor is it the place of a commercial entity (i.e. any retail store) to enforce those restrictions. I know that we put those restrictions on some substances, like alcohol, and expect stores to enforce those restrictions, but ideas are a very different matter. Parents are really the only people who should be regulating their child's exposure to ideas. Not because they "know better" than their children, but because they know their children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What are your thoughts on libraries collecting and loaning video games? Should the ALA resist attempts to restrict minors from borrowing games intended for mature audiences?
ReplyDeleteI wish that I could agree but I recently saw a video game that my brother had in which the player was a member of a terrorist team with the goal being to kill as many civilians as possible in an airport. The player received extra points for killing any cops they came in contact with.
ReplyDeleteMaybe some of this material should be considered obscene in the same way that porn is by a lot of people, and then restrict certain items to those players eighteen and older.
Sometimes, it seems to me, certain things should be off limits to particular age groups who might not have the comprehension to differentiate between right (killing is not a fun thing) and wrong (never mind, go ahead and unleash on people).
What gets me about the 2005 California thing: if I remember correctly, it came about from a huge controversy surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that year.
ReplyDeleteIn this game, you can pick up a hooker, have relations with her in your car, and then when she gets out of the car, you can kill her and take your money back. Then, when the ambulance comes to get her, you can kill the paramedics, and take the ambulance and run over a bunch of people. Then, when the cops come after you, you can shoot the cops and steal the cop car, and go run over more civilians. And so on.
But none of that drew the ire of the censors. Instead, it was a cut scene called "Hot Coffee" where the lead character and his girlfriend have consensual sex that was a bridge too far for the censors. They don't even take their clothes off. What a country.
@Jennifer - I believe firmly that it is a parents place to decide what children can and cannot have access to, not the government or the library. I think that the ALA is right and that libraries should not be telling kids what they can't have. I like having a rating system so that parents can have an idea of what may be in a game, but in the end the responsibility for what children consumes should fall squarely on the shoulders of the parents.
ReplyDeleteGranted this is not my view, but if someone is interested in a possible angle to argue against violent video games, here is an interesting article.
ReplyDeleteWonderly, Monique. "A Humean Approach to Assessing the Moral Significance of Ultra-Violent Video Games." Ethics and Information Technology. 10.1 (2008): 1-10. Print.
From the description in the abstract, the argument seems to be that these violent video games start to eliminate the natural state of empathy that humans have.