Violent Video Games
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-28/violent-video-games
The Supreme Court takes on another free-speech challenge: whether states can ban the sale of violent video games to minors: Arguments for and against expanding obscenity standards to include violent images.
Guests
Leland Yee
California State Senator
Cheryl Olson
Co-Director, Center for Mental Health and Media, Harvard Medical School
Richard Taylor
Entertainment Software Association
Eugene Volokh
professor of 1st Amendment law, UCLA Law School
Craig Anderson
distinguished professor of psychology, Iowa State University
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The First Amendment was never designed to void parent's right to keep their children from material they consider harmful. We need to have strict standards on what entertainment is available to minors in all media without parental consent. Legislation won't make parents be responsible about what their children view, but we can make it easier for parents to make informed choices. In addition, labels on all media should disclose explicit sex, nudity, violence and bad language so that consumers can make informed choices.
@SamLedbetter: CAUSATION≠CORRELATION!!!!! Any child with violent tendencies can just as easily be attracted by nature to violent video games as a child attracted to violent video games can lead to a more aggressive nature! I hate to say this, but from the description you give, your friend may have simply been a horrible person to begin with, who just happened to play violent games. i mean, while we're making such wild accusations, why not say your "known alcoholic" was desensitized to common sense by alcohol and wound up in that busy intersection as a direct result of drinking?
Do you see how that link makes no sense?
Thank you Mr. Taylor.
I am 59, female and I play M rated games. When my stepdaughter was young, we controled what she played at our house and it was NOT M rated games. We also controled how long she could play a game.
Parents need to research. They don't need to be their kids friend, they need to be their parent. They can be their friend when the child is an adult.
I've been at video stores when a kid, with his parent, bought an M rated game and the clerk told the parent it was M and gave them some information on the game itself. Another time, a boy asked about an M rated game and the clerk told him he was too young, told his parent what the game was and the parent said no.
I do not want the goverment controling what is available on tv, movies or video games.
What is the difference between ratings and age restrictions on movies and the system we have in place for video games? I thought we already had decent restrictions on the purchase of video games. A 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy a R-rated movie nor a M-rated game. If a parent buys the game for the child then the responsibility for any learned behavior falls on the parent. Why is there a big debate about it? There is no game that is as "graphic" as a live-action movie so I see no reason to treat games differently than movies. As a person growing up with the Nintendo, I have experienced games with plenty of killing (Doom, Wolfenstein) from the late 80s and early 90s. Most people objecting to violent video games don't realize that killing in games has been around since the beginning of the industry. Personally I played some violent games as a child partly due to an interest in the violent theme and partly because it was taboo. The same applies to why children have an interest in violent movies. The interest in violence isn't created by the game; it originates in the person who chooses to play the game. However, I do believe that parents of children who spend a lot of time on only violent games should take concern. The concern should not be that the games are changing the child, but that the child has an unhealthy interest in violent acts.
Lee, but the entertainment industry and video game industry do disclose explicit sex, nudity, and violent content right on their packaging. It only takes a quick glance by a parent to find this information. There comes a point where the parents have to start taking responsibility for what their children are exposed to.
In the end video games are the most recent scapegoat for lack of parental responsibility, just like music, TV and movies before it. Parents need to be parents and monitor what they're children are doing for entertainment, plain and simple.
I think the danger of violent video games is facilitating the nervous system into a reflexive aggressive response so that one's conditioned response to anything is aggressive, rather than considered. Maybe there is a connection between thousands of hours of training in violent response by video games to the prevalence of uncivil and aggressive political culture.
Also I have seen in documentary film of our soldiers in Iraq war, soldiers firing on people and killing them with the same glee one would have in a video game. Quite likely this contributes to quilt over what one has done in the war when the soldier later realizes what he did was not a game, that the consequences of war are devastating.
What is the difference between ratings and age restrictions on movies and the system we have in place for video games?
Not much.
A 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy a R-rated movie nor a M-rated game.
A 10 year old shouldn't buy an R-rated movie. But there is no law that children cannot buy R-rated movies. Many theaters and stores have their own policies that they won't do that. If for no other reason then they don't want to deal with angry parents coming in. But people who work in video game stores tend to care about video games as an art form, and want children to enjoy appropriate works of the medium. I loved playing Zelda as a kid and I'm sure all the video store clerks did, too; they want kids today to have the same enjoyment.
Personally, the most outwardly violent people I have met don't play many video games. They learned their violence from family/friends/acquaintances growing up. The people that I remember spending the most time playing violent games growing up were always reclusive and docile. Honestly, as a kid do you remember the "bad" kids staying in the house all day in front of a TV? The bad kids were outside away from supervision getting into trouble and hanging around bad role models.
Unfortunately the desensitization of our soldiers does not come from video games, but from our own military trainers. This is a major part of our military training system and always has been. The travesties of Vietnam cannot be blamed on video games and neither can the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Diane,
I'm a father of 5 children, and my 4 boys are 6,9,10 & 12. We don't allow them to watch rated R movies or play games rated M - mature. One night, at a friends house, much to my surprise, the kids had been playing and watching grand theft auto the whole time we visited. I found this out when I went to round them up to leave. For the next month, the kids insisted on trading in every game they had becasue they were all "boring" and they wanted to buy and play grand theft auto. For the next month, we fought about this regularly. They finally forgot about it and now play their age appriopriate games from time to time. I find these M-mature games very inappropriate for kids and I believe they should be kept away from children as much as possible. I totally support an legistation to that effect.
Best Regards,
Kevin Hineman
My wife's 5th grade students daily share stories of playing Grand Theft Auto, Call Of Duty, and Halo with their father or older sibling. The parents or older siblings will be the ones that purchase the games, and limiting sales to minors won't limit their exposure. The real concern is parents who are fully aware of the content, yet allow their children to participate in playing mature games.
As a video game artist of over 20 years I've seen these concerns many times over the years, both in the UK, and US.
I'd like to share be a conversation I over heard at Disney World between a father and son. The son must have been around 8-10 years old. They were discussing a game they played together. A good father/son bonding experience I thought. The line was long, and I listened for a while. It turned out they had been playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. They both laughed and "high fived" each other with tales of their experiences in the game. Those familiar with its content will know this involves much violence and various ways of "breaking the law". What I remember most however was their shocked voices when they discussed the hidden "sex game" within it. Scandalized. Angry. They were very much upset. "Why did they add that in there?" I heard them exclaim. "That's so awful". Sex offended, Violence did not.
Parents need to be more aware of media content in general. Quite tricky in a modern society where we are bombarded with content from all directions. In this case the parent did seem involved with his child's consumption on a violent game. They also appeared to be a loving father and son.
I think part of the problem with games is that they are very often portrayed as a "kid" thing. Whereas in reality they have long since moved into the realm of other "adult" media such as Movies, with which video games can rival for revenue. Many cost 50 dollars or more, and run on gaming systems that cost hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars for a high end gaming PC. Not something that the average child can afford. Adults must be involved with many if not most of these purchases. Warnings are posted on the games themselves. Reviews abound, and can easily
be found on the web.
The proof that these games may cause issues might be arguable, but the fact that parents need to "parent" is not.
I am a 63 year old AVID video game addict, who's been playing for nearly a decade and simply love them. For oldsters and retirees like myself, I think they are a great diversion and good for exercising mental agility and eye-hand coordination.
The main danger in videogaming is that it can be addictive and take young people away fromtheir homework and other responsibilities. But if I had to choose between a videogame addiction and others such as to drugs, smoking, or hanging out on the streets looking for trouble, I'd choose the former as being the less of the other potential possible evils.
I do agree that some videogames, particularly those that glorify killing cops and such, are over the top. But so is some hip hop "gangsta" music and extreme horror films.
Otherwise, and particularly for retirees with time on their hands, I think they can be a great pastime.
I think it is funny that this is still an issue on the courts or even in legislation when you have players like those who developed
www.penny-arcade.com
who do indeed play "violent" video games and yet also have one of the largest and most giving children's foundation in existence
www.childsplaycharity.org
I guess these guys and their donors didn't get the memo that they are suppose to be robbing banks, snorting cocaine, and beating women, and homeless people...
All I can say is that Mr. Anderson is awfully condescending. His verbal eye rolling really made Dr. Olsen sound that much more intelligent and compelling - Harvard also helped her credibility.
I'm a 22 year old female and play all types of video games. I have been playing the Grand Theft Auto series since I was in high school, yet despise real life violence. I feel like video games don't necessarily have any real life impacts. Playing violent video games, to me, is no different than watching a movie that has violence in it. Those who do violent things in video games don't necessarily carry that out into real life. I feel like shootings, such as Columbine, were done by individuals who were already disturbed - video games cannot take a normal, socially adjusted individual and completely transform them into a violent, angry individual. Those of us who grew up on video games know the difference between the virtual, video game world and the real one.
ackranome thank you for plugging Child's Play! It's one of my favorite charities, and my husband and I donate through them around Christmas every year. Gabe & Ty are great, and definitely a good example of 40 year old+ game addicts. Our generation grew up on video games, and we fall into that 35ish demographic that was discussed on the show (I'm 28, my husband is 31). We turned out to be normal, well-adjusted members of society despite our steady diet of violent video games in adolescence.
So what did we learn?
-There is no link between violent games and violent kids. Just "aggressive behavior" which isn't linked to violence.
-Games already have a rating system that is more clear and easy to understand then movies do.
-Retailers by and large can't sell M rated games to kids under 17 years of age.
..so where is the problem? If some parents don't pay enough attention to what their kids are doing, why should we suffer for it as adults by having content controlled through censorship.
I think politicians who crusade against violent games have a lack of understanding about games. They see it as a way to get votes by like minded people who want to censor everything they can. The effect more often I believe though is to alienate the politician from the growing number of voters who do understand the games and think this is all silly if not dangerous to free speech.
Diane, I love your show. I encourage listeners to look into the work of Jackson Katz-The Macho Paradox and Tough Guise. The speakers used gender-neutral terms like: children, kids, people who are committing acts of violence -hiding the evidence that violence is far and away committed by men and boys - Why aren't we asking why? Gender is almost never discussed. Let's look at the cultural construct of masculinity -reinforced by the media and video game makers and the relationship to violence.
I wanted to be short, because I know a lot of people won't read someones comment if it is really long and tedious, bogged down with formalities that no one cares about. You are absolutely wrong, My friend always has been a good guy, really nice, considerate, is in a healthy long term (for our age) relationship, and out of our group, we have always considered him one of the most responsible, blah blah blah. Besides that, we are only 18 years old, and coincidentally, he also plays a lot, I mean a lot, of violent video games. In a short 18 years, I don't see how anyone can be that horribly desensitized unless it is through violent video games, movies, T.V. shows, and any other media outlet that seems to spew out never ending senseless violence.
This seems like a case of drawing too many conclusions from a study. It reminds me of the study that came out months back attempting to draw a correlation to teens who watch more sexual material on TV and being more sexual. As with that study, it was unclear that watching TV caused being more sexual, rather that teens who were more sexual watched more sexual TV.
The conversations seems like the previous generation not understanding the medium of the new generation. Many in congress seem to think that video games are still like arcades with Donkey Kong and all aimed at all kids.
Mature video games have complex characters, anti-heroes, plots, and adult themes which are made for adults. Parents must choose, like with movies, which have content appropriate for their kids to play. If you don't bother researching what you're getting, don't complain after you have bought your kids something like the "Saw" movies.
The arguments sound like those made in previous generations against the evils of Rock and Roll.
Like any medium (books, TV, Music, Movies, Comics) there can be things produced or published which are not to your tastes. I find movies like "Saw" and games like "Grand Theft Auto" distasteful, but find the idea of banning either of them idiocy. If you find the material distasteful, don't give them your money. The bigger question we have to be asking is why are so many people in our society willing to pay money to experience these.
I am a researcher of video game and media violence myself. I am deeply disturbed by the comments of Dr. Anderson, which do not remotely match well with the actual data in this field which are not nearly as consistent or strong as he claims. These kinds of comments by a scholar who has mistaken his personal beliefs for "science" make psychology look bad as a field.
I am glad a more balanced researcher such as Dr. Olson was present to actually discuss the facts.