The article I have chosen to refute was written by Adam Liptak of The New York Times, entitled “Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children.” In this article Adam gives some first hand accounts on the reasons behind the Supreme Court decisions for not making it illegal to sell violent video games to children under the age of 18.
Justice Antonin Scalia was quoted saying, “We have no businesspassing judgment on the view of the California Legislature that violent video games (or, for that matter, any other forms of speech) corrupt the young or harm their moral development” (Justices Reject Ban). However, numerous studies have been done that directly oppose this statement that show a rise in violent behavior directly after the use of violent video games. While no study can conclusively say that a school shooting or massacre like Newtown is directly correlated to a video game because there are often many variables at play, Craig A. Anderson, a psychologist at Iowa State University says, “If you look at the literature, I think it’s clear that violent media is one factor; it’s not the largest factor, but it’s also not the smallest” (Shooting in the Dark).
Next, Justice Scalia writes, “Depictions of violence have never been subject to government regulation. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed,” he wrote, recounting the gory plots of “Snow White,” “Cinderella” and “Hansel and Gretel.” High school reading lists and Saturday morning cartoons, too, he said, are riddled with violence” (Justices Reject Ban). This outlook on media is far too old school and doesn’t take into account that video games aren’t just a regular form of literature. These games are becoming so technologically advanced that one can create a player in their exact image and instead of reading about a killing or murder in a book, the user themselves make decisions on who and how to kill in the game. They have to power to meticulously plan out a violent act, which in my opinion is far more deviant then reading about it in Romeo & Juliet. When a user is able to actually perform the act of violence themselves, and see the graphic imagery of their opposition being mutilated it is going to have a far more lasting effect on them as a person than if they were to read about it in a story and I believe they should be treated differently as such.
“Justices Reject Ban on Violent Video Games for Children.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 June 2011. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
“Shooting in the Dark.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/studying-the-effects-of-playing-violent-video-games.html>.
The figure to the left is a poll taken asking “Who do you think have the most responsibility for keeping children from seeing too much sex and violence on televisions and movies these days?” 86% answered with parents having the most responsibility and I agree. Parents need to be the ones who have the ultimate control on what their children watch. It is going to be too hard for television to regulate all the violence that occurs. It is the job of the parents to make sure that their children only view what they want them to see.
Banning Violence and Sex on Television (Comm398O) 