View and vote on the article here: Let Parents do the Parenting
Let Parents do the Parenting| Category | | | Summary | | The following editorial is a reprint from my college paper "Let Parents do the Parenting", about the follies of US government attempts to censor video games they deem as inappropriate for anyone under 17. |
| | Body | Let Parents do the Parenting
During the 2000 election cycle, an issue for the politicians was violence in our nation's schools. Shootings, most notably the ones at Columbine had left our nation in fear of our own children. Parents where calling for leaders to take action, and there was no short supply of answers from them. But like many promises made during election time, much of it was geared towards impressing the people and not actually gaining results. In the two years since then, the issue is still being raised, and the politicians have continued attacking the same culprits that they've demonized, with no results. The greatest failure to our children so far this new millennium is the side show of politics that is the attack on the video game industry.
The first known legal attempt to censor video games was made in Indianapolis by Mayor Bart Peterson. In a May 9, 2000 press release Peterson stated, ?The extreme violence and sex that have saturated our culture is hurting us in profound ways and are having an especially harmful impact on the youngest and most impressionable in our society. This is more than prevalent in violent video games, and right now, nothing stops a young child from walking into an arcade and watching or playing a game that would shock and horrify most people." Those are indeed very passionate words from the mayor who just months later instituted a city ordinance forcing public arcades to censor themselves. What he and others who have stated similar arguments fail to realize is that it's simply not true that ?nothing stops a young child?. A small child cannot normally get to an arcade without the help of a parent. Also, the laws they are proposing isn't limited to small children, but all persons under the age of 17. It would be foolhardy to think that the same restrictions on content that apply to a elementary student should also apply to someone preparing to leave for college. An example that plays to this issue of real world effects of video games is that at the age of 16, a minor can drive and be involved in a serious accident. Would it be better that the driving games show that an accident can be brutal and deadly, or playful and funny?
Another argument is that violent video games elevate the level of aggressiveness of children, causing them to act out in unhealthy ways. This is usually accompanied with studies of children at play with toys such as building blocks and dolls compared with those playing violent video games. The first argument's only basis is in such studies, which have been widely regarded by the psychiatric and sociological study community as flawed and biased from the beginning. The fact that all of them tend to overlook is that any activity involving action elevates aggression and assertiveness in children as well as adults. More neutral and well rounded studies have shown that this not only includes violent video games, but any game that challenges motor skills, including non-violent video games and sports activities like basketball, football, kickball, or soccer. One should be able to clearly see that such arguments are nothing more than a smoke screen to the facts. One would have an easier time arguing that children playing Cowboys and Indians with play pistols would be more harmful to a child, and yet none of these same politicians have ever advocated censoring G.I. Joe for adult use only the same way pornography is censored. But that is exactly how they want to treat games, forcing them to be kept behind curtains in stores and arcades like peep-shows.
The last two real arguments against violent video games go hand in hand with each other. Opponents of violent video games say they are not a form of legally protected expression and that the violence in them is unnatural for children to see. One should be able to look at this argument and dismiss it at face value. That is what happened when the Indianapolis ordinance against violent games was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, IL. The justices realized the truth and ruled on the clear facts of the matter. Video games are covered by the First Amendment because they are usually based around storylines, involve characters that players learn about, and that books themselves try to get a level of interaction with the reader. They also dismissed out of hand the idea that violence is unnatural for children. To ban or prohibit violent content from children would also mean that they would not be allowed to read such great works as The Odyssey, Sherlock Holmes, or the bibles of the three main religions, Judaism, Christian, or Muslim. It would also mean that they would have to be censored from watching the news, reading newspapers or magazines, or from going to hospitals without blindfolds, because the fact is that that violence is a core part of society. To ban its expression in any valid expression form seemed to the justices and to any person with good common sense as improperly shielding children from how society functions; doing more harm than any good that could come from it. A child who grows without the basic truths of society is only being set up for failure when they must function within that society as an adult.
The sadness of it all is that the politicians are using video games as a scapegoat for their lack of any real solutions. Even if all of the arguments against them were valid, there still remains the core point that makes all such attempt to censor such things unreasonable, whether its music, video games, or television. The people who should have the final say over what a minor is able to view are the parents. The state of Georgia is now attempting this same ill-fated legal tactic of making parenting a government function. If we truly cannot trust parents, then that is the real danger to children. Let us not blame the artists, writers, and designers for the ills of society. What a child becomes is determined by many more factors, such as the love of a parent, the quality of their education, the role models of society, and the friends they associate with. While politicians are wasting their time with this, they are not cracking down on drugs, poverty, gangs, and the ease with which minors can get weapons. It is those things which are tearing down the spirits of our children. Let's help our children and not play with their fate like it's a game. |
|
This article was imported from zZine. (original author: Goliath)
There are no replies to this post yet.
|