Just imagine two brothers. The youngest one (16-years-old), spends his life playing “Halo 3,” and has now developed a sense that killing isn’t that bad. After a while, without him even knowing, the horrid murder stories on the news don’t bother him anymore. One day, after leaving his console, he finds that his older brother (18-years-old) had switched on his system without asking! Infuriated, he runs to the kitchen and grabs the nearest knife and stabs his own brother in the back, killing him within seconds. This is exactly what happened on April 4th of this year.
What many do not realize is that violent video games pose a great danger to both gamers and non-gamers. The disturbing thing is that not a lot of people know it. Many studies have shown that violent video games increase aggression levels within most gamers and generally, the longer the play time, the greater short-term and long-term effects it has on them. This issue alone does not pose much of a threat, but there a few more things to add to that. One of the most worrisome facts is that violent video game consumers become desensitized to violence and gore – even the military uses violent video games to train their people how to kill without emotional counter-effects. On top of these two problems, there are negative behavioral effects of long term playing. Put all three of these factors into a blender and out comes the situation described above – violent outbursts, both controlled and uncontrolled.
Obviously gaming is a right to be had by many, and rightfully so, but there needs to be limits if our right to life is in danger. This leads to the great question: How does America solve this problem? The solution may be easier than what is expected.
A perfect opportunity has presented itself to the American people. The Federal Supreme Court has just granted writ of certiorari to the Californian case, Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association. The very essence of this case will determine whether or not states will have the ability to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors. This is a very important case, but winning this case only solves half of violent video game problem. We also have to consider the question, “Well, can’t the parents buy the games for their children?” Yes they can, and that’s why I’ve composed a solution that solves both problems.
The solution is that we need to let others know the harms that can come from violent video games! There are three ways to go about this: 1. Telling parents of minors. In turn, parents will pay more attention to their children’s video game playing and keep it in realistic check (e.g., balancing it with other activities, or even telling him or her of the harms associated with violent video games). This will cause the parents to carefully purchase video games and children to play less. This solution is very feasible to anyone who can speak. Why? Because if parents love their children and want to ensure their mental well-being, they will at least let their children know of the dangerous effects violent video games pose. 2. Tell the voting public. By letting the voters know about the harms, they can vote into Congress those individuals who will construct violent video game regulation laws. 3. To make a big impact, you can write letters to the governing officials showing why these laws are Constitutional.
Here is why these laws are Constitutional: The Supreme Court has established that any type of expression that incites imminent lawlessness is not protected by the Constitution, and therefore states can make laws regulating such speech. Video games pose a danger to even the non-gamers in the real-world due to the issues discussed. That is why, and how the American people should and can stand up for our protection rights and guard our country’s future!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Cause and Effect Concerning Violent Video Game and Regulation
In this blog I will be discussing the PRIMARY cause and effect arguments that are being used concerning the law and Supreme Court lawsuits. To define the subject that will be discussed: whether or not the Supreme Court should allow laws that prohibit the sale of violent video game sales to minors. The importance of this post is for another intelligent discussion that analyzes cause and effect arguments so to make sure that people are not fooled with fallacies.
The primary cause and effect argument is that violent video games increase violent crimes. In other words, what is being said here is that the effect of regulating violent video games will decrease crime... violent crime. Although this law would restrict the freedom of expression, derived from the First Amendment, this would be Constitutional because this is a state compelling interest. A state compelling interest is self explanatory in that in order for the state to make a law that restricts an amendment right, it needs an very good reason to do so. Thus, this is the primary cause and effect argument made in the discussion of violent video game regulation.
The primary cause and effect argument is that violent video games increase violent crimes. In other words, what is being said here is that the effect of regulating violent video games will decrease crime... violent crime. Although this law would restrict the freedom of expression, derived from the First Amendment, this would be Constitutional because this is a state compelling interest. A state compelling interest is self explanatory in that in order for the state to make a law that restricts an amendment right, it needs an very good reason to do so. Thus, this is the primary cause and effect argument made in the discussion of violent video game regulation.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Opposition to Court Decsion of Violent Video Game Regulation
In USA Today, April 30th, 2010, several authors say that parents can control video game regulation themselves for their own children. Here is a quick analysis on the author's writing technique:
Michael did well starting his argument. It is what seems to be fairly sound, but only because it is based on values. He starts off saying that the Supreme Court skipped over the most relevant and easiest solution to the problem of violent video games. Usually the American people think of the Supreme Court of looking at facts too many facts. The main tool that this author used was simple logic. It is so logical that it makes you think, "Yeah, why doesn't the Supreme Court just allow parents to regulate the video games themselves?" He restates his claim at the end that parents need to raise their children, not the government raising the children for the parents.
I totally agree with his point: parents need to give children the attention and parenting they deserve; after all, the parents did decide to make adult decisions that brought them into this world. The problem that is easily missed with this is that a lot of parents do not care what games their children buys or plays, so, the government now has to take it in its own hands when this issue starts to effect the safety of rights of surrounding lives.
Works Cited
Michael Bailey. "Parents can Police Video Games." USAToday.com. 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 June 2010.
Michael did well starting his argument. It is what seems to be fairly sound, but only because it is based on values. He starts off saying that the Supreme Court skipped over the most relevant and easiest solution to the problem of violent video games. Usually the American people think of the Supreme Court of looking at facts too many facts. The main tool that this author used was simple logic. It is so logical that it makes you think, "Yeah, why doesn't the Supreme Court just allow parents to regulate the video games themselves?" He restates his claim at the end that parents need to raise their children, not the government raising the children for the parents.
I totally agree with his point: parents need to give children the attention and parenting they deserve; after all, the parents did decide to make adult decisions that brought them into this world. The problem that is easily missed with this is that a lot of parents do not care what games their children buys or plays, so, the government now has to take it in its own hands when this issue starts to effect the safety of rights of surrounding lives.
Works Cited
Michael Bailey. "Parents can Police Video Games." USAToday.com. 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 June 2010.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Stance Evaluation
After intensive study in the subject of violent video games and regulation laws, I’ve become quite knowledgeable compared to when I first started on this investigative journey. There comes a time for every researcher during his quest to re-evaluate his standing and position with his subject. That’s exactly what I’m doing today.
Before I started intensive research about whether or not the U.S. government should regulate the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors, I was quite wishy-washy. I didn’t know the previous case history of preceding rulings, and I didn’t really care much either way. But, one thing was for certain – I did know first-hand that there are some adverse effects from playing video games. I was what you call a “hard-core” video gamer with over five different video game systems. Little by little I have developed a sense that this is just not good for me. My mother started pointing out that I’ve become less diligent in any other thing I would be put hands to, I started obeying less and behaving more disrespectfully towards my parents (especially when she told me to stop playing to go do chores – and all you other video gamers know exactly what I’m talking about). And worst of all – the thing that caught my attention most, is when I saw my little brother obtaining these same habits and behaviors – that I couldn’t stand for.
That being my only motivation, I wanted to see what type of behaviors video games invoked, who it was causing them to, and what evidence is out there that video games cause adverse behavior. The evidence out there was very biased (mostly) and both for and against either side. Finally, I came across an expert research organization that was dedicated to making tests and studies that are honest in their findings – they evaluate where information is lacking in their own tests. The main expert is Craig Anderson, and his team is the American Psychological Association (APA). They are the top scholars in this area of study.
After extensive research from APA and others, I have found that I am more solidly grounded in my stance: the government should prohibit the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors. Us video gamers can all admit to very frustrated and angry emotions towards are siblings when they “mess with our equipment.” We can all say that after playing for a day or two straight we easily get upset and aggressive toward our family as well. Eventually somebody’s going to lose control, and this is exactly what happened this last month in April, 2010: “A 16-year-old stabbed and murdered his 18-year-old brother because he turned on his PlayStation without asking… The police said that he lost control” (BBC News, April 29, 2010).
"Freedom of Expression is one thing, but violent expression is another."
- Jared Moss
Works Cited
BBC News. “Murder Charge in PlayStation Row.” News.bbc.co.uk. 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 28 May 2010.
Before I started intensive research about whether or not the U.S. government should regulate the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors, I was quite wishy-washy. I didn’t know the previous case history of preceding rulings, and I didn’t really care much either way. But, one thing was for certain – I did know first-hand that there are some adverse effects from playing video games. I was what you call a “hard-core” video gamer with over five different video game systems. Little by little I have developed a sense that this is just not good for me. My mother started pointing out that I’ve become less diligent in any other thing I would be put hands to, I started obeying less and behaving more disrespectfully towards my parents (especially when she told me to stop playing to go do chores – and all you other video gamers know exactly what I’m talking about). And worst of all – the thing that caught my attention most, is when I saw my little brother obtaining these same habits and behaviors – that I couldn’t stand for.
That being my only motivation, I wanted to see what type of behaviors video games invoked, who it was causing them to, and what evidence is out there that video games cause adverse behavior. The evidence out there was very biased (mostly) and both for and against either side. Finally, I came across an expert research organization that was dedicated to making tests and studies that are honest in their findings – they evaluate where information is lacking in their own tests. The main expert is Craig Anderson, and his team is the American Psychological Association (APA). They are the top scholars in this area of study.
After extensive research from APA and others, I have found that I am more solidly grounded in my stance: the government should prohibit the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors. Us video gamers can all admit to very frustrated and angry emotions towards are siblings when they “mess with our equipment.” We can all say that after playing for a day or two straight we easily get upset and aggressive toward our family as well. Eventually somebody’s going to lose control, and this is exactly what happened this last month in April, 2010: “A 16-year-old stabbed and murdered his 18-year-old brother because he turned on his PlayStation without asking… The police said that he lost control” (BBC News, April 29, 2010).
"Freedom of Expression is one thing, but violent expression is another."
- Jared Moss
Works Cited
BBC News. “Murder Charge in PlayStation Row.” News.bbc.co.uk. 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 28 May 2010.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Names of the Game
What’s the significance of talking if the ideas people are communicating are not understood? Futility is very imminent. Therefore, in order to continue the scholarly discussion about video game regulation terminology needs to be established. There are five words that are prevalent in this discussion: regulation, ultra-violent, desensitization, short-term/long-term testing, and Freedom of Expression. These words need to be understood from the context and the vantage point of video game regulation and law. Here are definitions and relations of the foundational terms:
When legislators talks about “ultra-violent video games,” they are talking about games rated M-Mature due to the violent content. The extent of regulation by the various state governments is merely prohibiting the sale of ultra-violent video games to children and minors, not adults. The state of California and a few others are currently pushing to extend the Miller Obscenity Test to not only cover obscene materials, but violence in the media as well (video games are classified as a form of media). Desensitization is what happens to people who repeatedly witness crimes and violence which results in becoming emotionally and mentally “immune” to such sights. This applies to both physical and virtual images, and generally, the more realistic the more harm done. This becomes an inherent problem as video game graphics progress. Short-term testing and long-term testing both carry a significant difference in the type of results and credibility of any sort of violent video game test. Lawsuits in the area of video game regulation normally stand on the ground of the First Amendment right: Freedom of Expression. Although this term does not appear in the First Amendment, it is derived and interpreted from the Freedom of Speech and of the Press clause.
When legislators talks about “ultra-violent video games,” they are talking about games rated M-Mature due to the violent content. The extent of regulation by the various state governments is merely prohibiting the sale of ultra-violent video games to children and minors, not adults. The state of California and a few others are currently pushing to extend the Miller Obscenity Test to not only cover obscene materials, but violence in the media as well (video games are classified as a form of media). Desensitization is what happens to people who repeatedly witness crimes and violence which results in becoming emotionally and mentally “immune” to such sights. This applies to both physical and virtual images, and generally, the more realistic the more harm done. This becomes an inherent problem as video game graphics progress. Short-term testing and long-term testing both carry a significant difference in the type of results and credibility of any sort of violent video game test. Lawsuits in the area of video game regulation normally stand on the ground of the First Amendment right: Freedom of Expression. Although this term does not appear in the First Amendment, it is derived and interpreted from the Freedom of Speech and of the Press clause.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Reality Check on Video Game Violence
This photograph by Jim Sterling was probably set-up depicting what is actually a very common event – a wife beating. This facial expression carries the most significance of the photograph and the fist carries secondary importance. The facial expression shows that she has lost all of the trust that she had for her husband from what he did and also is twisted with great perplexity which cries out, “who ARE you? You are a monster!” This represents the common studies performed that state that increased aggression levels are linked to video games. Most in-depth video game players can agree that they have felt great bolts of frustration and annoyance when their parents suddenly call them to get off of their video game and do their chores or a favor. This frustration and feeling is the perfect explanation of this photo. The extremity of this photo invokes a powerful feeling of shamefulness, disgust-with-one’s-self, and morbid regret. It describes what a lot of people have felt in one way or another. It tells a simple truth that cannot be described by a thousand studies – concluding it all with the words: “You never forget your first time.” This is a horrifically powerful statement.
The significance to this photo is that is shows the reality of violent video games. Obviously this action does not happen to all, but it certainly IS a direct result of violence lingering inside of a video gamer's mind, and the emotional attachment in a video game lets the images fester inside of one's heart (subconsciously) as well. This photo describes only what a billion words cannot. We have seen these "wasted words" used countless times in courts - but do the people in courts really see the effects? As a previous video gamer and an observer of many, I know first-hand the truth in this picture... As our subconscious slowly but surely takes priority over what it delights in, and once it’s been denied that pleasure, it consumes.
Works Cited
Sterling, Jim. “Study: Violent video games ads the most memorable.” Photograph. destructoid.com. 9 Apr. 2009. Web. 20 May 2010.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Video Game Regulation - Pro Analysis Argument
Taking an analysis of the article, “The Government Should Stop Kids From Buying Violent Video Games,” from U.S. News, May 10, 2010, there appears to be an inductive argument. Timothy F. Winter feels very strongly that the government should regulate ultraviolent video games by limiting the sale to minors. Winter’s statement is inductive because it rests on his observations and facts that follow the statement.
Winter says that over 3,000 studies have shown links between violent media and increased aggression levels in children and they’ve found less than a couple dozen that say otherwise. This argument has a non sequitur fallacy in that violent media is not violent video games. Shortly after this argument, Winter says that this regulation does not solve 100% of the solution, but regulation is a good step in solving part of the problem. What is the problem that Winter asserts? One, he clearly states in the opening paragraph that ultraviolent video games are harmful to children, and violence certainly doesn’t reap good things.
Winter states that if parents really knew the things in video games, they would give more thought and research into it before buying them. He uses very logical reasoning to back up his inductive problem and conclusion: “Children are not just sitting back and watching the violence.” They are actively deciding and engaging in each feature presented in the game as Winter describes: Shooting the police and urinating on him as he tries to crawl away – Brutally beating and raping women, or decapitating her with a shovel – shooting a man, pouring gasoline over his wounded body, setting him and fire, and listening to him scream in agony as he burns to death (Grand Theft Auto IV). This active decision and engaging in these actions lead to a very logical point that these video games are not suited for a growing minor. These observations and facts are the things that have led Winter to his logical claim.
The inoculation of violence into children will obviously not reap good behavior. As inmates often say after years in prison – “I only do what I know to do.”
Works Cited
Winter, Timothy F. “The Government Should Stop Kids From Buying Violent Video Games.” USNews.com: U.S. News 18 May 2010. Web. 18 May 2010.
Winter says that over 3,000 studies have shown links between violent media and increased aggression levels in children and they’ve found less than a couple dozen that say otherwise. This argument has a non sequitur fallacy in that violent media is not violent video games. Shortly after this argument, Winter says that this regulation does not solve 100% of the solution, but regulation is a good step in solving part of the problem. What is the problem that Winter asserts? One, he clearly states in the opening paragraph that ultraviolent video games are harmful to children, and violence certainly doesn’t reap good things.
Winter states that if parents really knew the things in video games, they would give more thought and research into it before buying them. He uses very logical reasoning to back up his inductive problem and conclusion: “Children are not just sitting back and watching the violence.” They are actively deciding and engaging in each feature presented in the game as Winter describes: Shooting the police and urinating on him as he tries to crawl away – Brutally beating and raping women, or decapitating her with a shovel – shooting a man, pouring gasoline over his wounded body, setting him and fire, and listening to him scream in agony as he burns to death (Grand Theft Auto IV). This active decision and engaging in these actions lead to a very logical point that these video games are not suited for a growing minor. These observations and facts are the things that have led Winter to his logical claim.
The inoculation of violence into children will obviously not reap good behavior. As inmates often say after years in prison – “I only do what I know to do.”
Works Cited
Winter, Timothy F. “The Government Should Stop Kids From Buying Violent Video Games.” USNews.com: U.S. News 18 May 2010. Web. 18 May 2010.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)