The video game industry has been under repeated attack by accusations that the material in their best-selling video games has harmful effects on children and on society as a whole. With $10 billion dollars in annual sales the gaming industry has an interest in any policies that may hinder business and produce false information to the public. In the search for answers an examination of medical findings from groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA), American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and even the United States Surgeon General will be taken into account while investigating for the truth.
The search for truth began at the New York Times online data base. After several pages of game reviews I found my first article titled; Under Glare of Scrutiny, a Game is Toned Down. The article opens “It is clear by now that violence in video games is thought to be more pernicious than comparable violence in traditional media. ” The article makes a comparisons of Halo and Star Wars saying that the game is labeled “a violent shoot-’em-up” meanwhile Star Wars gets a pass because it is a movie.
The article fails to inform you that Star Wars is rated PG for “Sci-Fi Violence and Brief Mild Language” while Halo is rated Mature for “Blood and Gore, Violence”. The article continues stating the “an entire cottage industry has emerged to denounce shootings and stabbings in video games. ” They explain the tale of woe that one game Manhunt 2, which was banned in the US and Britain for being too violent, had to be revised to receive an M for mature rating (ages 17 and up) so that it could be sold in the US market.
What did they have to exclude from the game one would ponder? The answer; a scene epicting the mutilation on a male genitalia with a pair of pliers. And their justification “but it is no more violent than so-called torture porn films like “Hostel” and “Saw” (Schiesel). The next New York Times article was Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children. The article was dated June 27, 2011 and the Supreme Court struck down a California law that would fines stores $1,000 if they sold violent video games to anyone under eighteen. The definition given of violent gameplay was “options available to a player including killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.
The Supreme Court found this to be a violation to the 1st Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia stated “depictions of violence have never been subject to government regulation. ” “Grims Fairy Tales, Snow White, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel and high school readings are riddled with violence” Scalia continued. Senator of California Leland Yee disagreed with the rulings of the court and voiced his own opinion “The Supreme Court once again put the interest of corporate America before the interests of our children” (Liptak).
Heads of the video game industry and others profiting claim in interviews, magazines, newspapers, and television reports and in the courtrooms that there is no research demonstrating that violent video games can lead to negative outcomes. Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, for instance stated in May 12, 2000 interview on CNN that “There is absolutely no evidence that playing video games leads to aggressive behavior.
He is also quoted in a PBS interview in 2005 that “Every independent researcher who has come to this without a preconceived notion trying to prove that video games are harmful has looked at the literature and said there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that violent video games are harmful. ” (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley 153) In several court cases states and municipalities have attempted to pass legislation to restrict the sale of violent video games without parental consent. The video game industry have actively worked to nullify any such laws and have always succeeded thus far.
Claiming that the parents are responsible for the decision of what their children play, the games are rated so that the parents can acknowledge what is age appropriate. They also claim that to regulate the material in their games is a violation of the 1st amendment rights (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley 150-154). Health organizations have statements and scientific research that conflicts what the video game industry has told us. The U. S. Surgeon General, the same Surgeon General that warns of the effects of tobacco leading to cancer, also warns that media violence can cause real violence in our society.
There was a congressional conference in July of 2000 when a joint statement to congress reporting that media is a casual factor of violence in our society and violent video games are particularly dangerous. The organizations spearheading this topic was the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the American Academy of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). These organizations are consisted of doctors, pediatrics, psychologists, and child psychiatrists.
Most people are not familiar with this information as the media censors this valuable information (Grossman and Christensen 239-240). AAP members are concerned that video games are especially ful because the players are interactive and encouraged in roleplaying and will act as virtual rehearsals for actual violence. Investigators theorize that violent video games have a greater negative effect on individuals than TV and film. This is because the player is the “hero” that is getting rewarded for violent actions and treats violent responses as appropriate and effective (Porter and Starcevic).
Some naysayers of the research information that has been provided have a few often quoted comebacks like; “I watched a lot of violence on TV as a kid and I never shot anyone, people know better than to act out what they do in games or see in movies, or that is not anyone’s right to make such laws that would affect the 1st amendment. ” To quickly answer these comebacks the various authors sum up each accordingly. Shooting someone is highly extreme and rare behavior and exposure to violent video games is unlikely to be the sole cause of such behavior without there being other risk factors.
Adults are susceptible to advertisements even though they “know” they are fake, therefore an ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality is not a viable excuse. As far as the 1st Amendment the government has restrictions on children’s access to pornography even though “research literature on the potential harmful effects of exposure to pornography is less massive and conclusive than the literature on harmful media effects” (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley). Grossman takes this thought a little farther”… he media argues it is the parent’s job to control what the kids watch.
What about the porn industry? The 1st Amendment protects adults to view porn, what if a child can walk into a shop and buy porn, or buy a gun (2nd Amendment), drive a car, drink alcohol, or tobacco? It is the parents job to protect their kids from all these and there are laws in place to help with that (Grossman and Christensen). ” There are well over 1,000 studies connecting media violence and aggressive behavior in children (Grossman and Christensen).