ALARM! :: I should have told you that movies in the afternoon are my weakness.

"Nobody should be a mystery intentionally. Unintentionally is mysterious enough."

Monday, June 06, 2005

A right to bear [virtual] arms

Playing violent video games does not directly cause harm to anyone.


Let’s be absolutely clear about this: no matter how much virtual blood may be shed during hours spent glued to the boob tube, Xbox controller in hand, and no matter how much of a waste of time it may be, video gaming neither kills nor harms anyone.

Blindingly obvious and simple as this may seem, video-gaming bashing censors want the public to believe that violent video games should be done away with, or at least severely restricted. But it's not because video games are directly linked to violence, it's because of the message they sell.

Jack Thompson, a lawyer who has fought video game companies in court, says in this interview that video games are “killing simulators,” and likens video game companies to cigarette manufacturers in what he claims is their dangerous effect on young people. Says Thompson, “The very same people … who say games can't encourage anyone to do anything are the same people who tend to get upset about tobacco ads because they encourage kids to smoke.”

But the problem with equating video game makers with big tobacco is that video games don’t actually harm any one. Video games are a representation of violence, but they are not actual violence, and that’s something that goody-goody crusaders on the left and right don’t seem to willing to acknowledge.

A better comparison would be to say that video game violence is like a kid taking a pen and pretending to smoke with it. Both are simulated actions that cause no direct harm to anyone nor guarantee any harmful result, and, as such, should not be forced into the same category as smoking which is always, unarguably, directly harmful.

In some ways, it’s comparable to the recent allegations that Newsweek’s possible misreporting caused the Arab riots, and subsequently, the deaths that occurred in the riots' wake. Again, the blame is shifted away from the individuals who are making the wrong decisions, in this case the rioters. Rioting, and certainly rioting that results in death, is wrong. Period. The fault of the reporters does not excuse in any way the fault of the rioters. While Newsweek’s reporting was lamentably wrong – and deserving of much criticism – placing the blame for those killed in the riots anywhere but on the heads of the rioters is faulty. Similarly, placing the blame for teenage violence anywhere other than on the teenagers who commit the violent acts is misdirected.

Anti-video game activists stem from the same strain of outraged parental cucklers who placed warning labels on records and raised a furor over NYPD Blue and other too-hot TV, eventually leading to the television rating that everyone has the pleasure of ignoring today. Once again, they’re trying to accomplish institutionally what ought to be done in the home. If anything, warning labels encourage lazy parenting; trusting some monolithic, nation-wide council of strangers to correctly label what media is and isn’t acceptable for your kids is naïve at best.

In the interview, Thompson’s entire argument is predicated on the idea that violent video games encourage kids towards violence. Hyperbolically, he calls games “murder simulators,” and makes the following ridiculous claim:

“Eventually there is going to be a Columbine to the factor of 10, a slaughter in a school by a crazed gamer. And when that happens, when America figures out these kids were filled up with virtual violence, Congress may ban the games altogether. You wise guys who think you're so clever about saying what kids ought to play and then putting [Mature] games in the hands of those kids, you will wish you listened to me.”

Whether or not video games truly encourage violence is not the issue. Instead, the question revolves around whether or not we’re going to restrict specific outlets from promulgating speech that we disagree with. While it’s probably true that few people want their kids encouraged towards violence, is it the place of the state to decide what media companies can promote? And if they can, who gets to decide what counts as “encouraging" violence? To restrict expression on the grounds that even though it has no directly harmful or illegal result, but instead may, in a very few cases, promote a message we disagree with is the worst sort of moralist, paternal bullying. The old adage is true: people have a right to be wrong. Thompson would deny them that right.

This trend towards cultural consternation of unpleasant speech is symptomatic of the ongoing threat to the free speech freedoms that also allow wholesome, moral speech (whatever someone’s definition of that might be) to go unchecked. If the government passes legislation restricting content in video games, they can just as easily pass legislation restricting what people can see, say, hear and read in churches or schools. Since most sensible people agree that the government’s place is not mucking with these institutions, it seems only rational that big brother be equally absent from others.

It’s not the job of the government to advocate for or against violence in video games, films, books or music. The job of the government is to protect the rights of those industries to say what they want, and along with that, the rights of their critics to deplore them – but not to shut them down. People like Jack Thompson want to regulate what other people’s children can and cannot see, but that’s the job of individual families. Thompson and his supporters need to stop trying to do the nation’s parenting, and the nation’s parents need to step up take responsibility for what their children are seeing, watching and playing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home