The Supreme Court finally came to a decision about the sale of violent video games to children and despite the hundreds and hundreds of studies linking violence on TV and in video games to aggressive behavior, they decided that “governments don’t have the right to restrict the ideas that children are exposed to.” OK, in theory that makes sense. BUT… we restrict children from depictions of sexual content, we currently prosecute for sexting, we don’t let children buy Playboy or porn videos, what’s the difference? It certainly hasn’t made a difference in our teenage pregnancy rate, the United States has THE HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. Compared to France, a country that is high on tolerance of exhibiting sexual images to children, our rate of unplanned teenage pregnancy age 15-19 is 52.1% while their rate is 9.3% (Unicef, 2001)!!
Meanwhile, we are a country that is fiercely protective of gun owners, that tolerates a high level of violence in all of our media and sensationalizes crime in news. European countries keep a tight control on guns and more strictly limit the kind of programming on national television have a much lower per capita crime rate.
Does anyone else think there might be something wrong with this picture?
Related Articles
4 users responded in this post
Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 71, deals with penalties for the following:
Section 1460 Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property
Section 1461 Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter
Section 1462 Importation or transportation of obscene matters
Section 1463 Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes
Section 1464 Broadcasting obscene language
Section 1465 Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
Section 1466 Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
Section 1466A Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
Section 1467 Criminal forfeiture
Section 1468 Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television
Section 1469 Presumptions
Section 1470 Transfer of obscene material to minors
Yes, that last one is: “Transfer of obscene material to minors.”
But letting minors play graphically violent depictions of firearm slaughter is okay.
I’m glad you put “hypocrisy” in the headline.
Very interesting… thanks for sharing!
Funny, you say “hundreds” of studies but you make one link to a study from 2003. Yee has also resorted to using outdated studies and statistics to try shoving his opinion down peoples’ throats. I guess you have something in common.
Let’s set aside for a moment that Craig Anderson has a noted history of flawed research and that, as Sotomayor pointed out during the oral arguments, his own study points out that the aggression spike raised by violet video games is the exact same as that of a Bugs Bunny episode. If it’s so conclusive in your eyes, then you haven’t seen the studies from The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health (Grand Theft Childhood), The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal, which have all shown no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity. Other studies denying the explicit connection between video games and aggression include, in rough order, Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002).
More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim Anderson’s data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Other meta-analyses by other groups, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have denied any links between video game violence and aggression.
I should also note that a brief compiled by 82 media scientists and researchers was submitted on behalf of the VIDEO GAME industry out of concern that California had misrepresented the science on video games (link to sblog.s3.amazonaws.com). Let’s take a look at some of their findings:
Point A: “California’s Studies Do Not Show A
Causal Link, Or Even A Correlation,
Between Playing Violent Video Games
And Psychological Or Neurological
Harm To Minors.”
Going back to Anderson, from the same brief, “Notably, Senator Yee fails to mention that the
methodology of Anderson’s metaZanalysis was
resoundingly criticized in the very same issue of the
journal in which the metaZanalysis was first
published.”
Video games have won. Get over it.
Dear Dr Science, Thanks so much for your comment. I agree with you that Anderson has a strong point of view that may indeed lead to flawed methodology. Sadly, this is certainly the case of many scientists. On the other hand, the video game industry has a vested interest to find scientists that would present the other side. As such, their meta-analyses are likely slanted as well. Very recent Fmri research indicates that video games with violent content changes how the brain reacts to stimuli (or becomes desensitized). Given that 30% of our neurons are mirror neurons, it is highly likely, as recent research indicates, that violent video games which model aggression can change behavior. BUT… individual differences are important, and most children, especially those with good impulse control and strong self-regulation skills, will never act out what they see in these games.
My view is that there are both positives and negatives to video games as with most things — I don’t think in terms of “winning” or “losing”. In another post I talk about what my son has learned from video games. He has actually played them since he was quite young. I believe in moderation and that at the developmentally appropriate level, video games have great potential to teach useful skills. Especially when scaffolded by parental or teacher involvement.
Finally, if you read my post carefully, I hope you will see that I was reacting to the hypocrisy our society demonstrates towards violent versus sexual content. I was not necessarily judging the issue that was ruled upon, instead I was commenting on what I view to be hypocrisy.
Thanks again for a stimulating discussion, and I hope you will comment again!
Leave A Reply