Imagine, you have decided to frolic through the realm of video games when all of the sudden you are shooting up every living piece of matter you spot. Games like this recently caused California to try and warrant a law that would have made it contraband to sell violent video games to underage minors without the consent of their parents. When all of a sudden, the Supreme Court swooped from out of no where like fruit bat, after that, the court decided to attempt to reason and declare if it is okay for underage minors to obtain violent video games. After a long and rational debate the supreme by a 7-2 majority declared it unconstitutional to not permit the selling of video games to kids even without parent’s permission. Although the court said it is protected by the First Amendment. I am at odds with the court in my opinion on how just how far the Supreme Court can protect obscenity. In my not so humble opinion, I feel that this Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association video games case is almost an exact replica of Ginsberg v New York pornographic magazines cases in times past, in the sense that both happen to be dealing with the idea of obscurity. I am not surprised that the court protected violent video games with the first amendment. According to Scalia violence in video games is a type of speech so it is not obscene just like how pornographic magazines were considered freedom of expression by Hugo Black. I am surprised to put Black and Scalia in the same realm to me their political dogmas on obscenity would have to be almost a paradox. I thought Scalia’s comparison of violence in video games to Grimm’s Fairy tale violence was very insipid, The reason being is the violence in Grimm’s is inanimate, On the other hand, Maybe sl... ... middle of paper ... ...em into rated-R movies without their parent’s approbation. The upside of this I guess is, video games companies will profit from kids buying their video games though. Furthermore, I Have prognosticated that another court case will come to Center on this same issue. To sum up this case I will acknowledge once again the supreme court has caused chaos to permeate the bowls of my mind, over weather or not violent video games are too obscene to be shown to kids or not. But for the time being all what people can do is watch and foresee, when the problem of violent video games emerges from the shadows once again. Works Cited Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Debates Ban on Selling Violent Video Games - NYTimes.com." Editorial. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 02 Nov. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. .
...r easily purchase them without serious consideration for their youths wellbeing and evaluate for themselves if any videogames including violent ones, are beneficial for their children. Take for example “the case of the eight-year-old boy in Slaughter, Louisiana, who over the summer picked up a gun and killed his elderly caregiver after playing Grand Theft Auto IV”. At first glance it seems like the videogame might be the catalyst here, but upon closer inspection we can see that the big issue here is that there was the eight year old child had both unmonitored access to violent media that is intended for ages 17 and up, and unmonitored access to a loaded weapon. Adequate parenting in spite of the lack of supported scientific research being applied to this situation would have more than likely resulted in the survival of the elderly caregiver of the young boy.
Paulson, Ken. “How obscene is video game violence?” USA Today. USA Today, 2 November 2010. Web. 24 October 2011.
Do we have a moral and ethical obligation to regulate video games and movies? On Martin Luther King Day 2002, the new video game "Ethnic Cleansing" was released by Resistance Records a company owned by the "National Alliance", the largest and most active neo-Nazi organization in the United States. The objective of the game is to kill "sub-humans"-i.e. Blacks and Latinos and their "masters", the Jews. "Patterned after popular mainstream games such as 'Quake' and 'Doom', the game turns racially motivated violence into entertainm...
Now a day every video game has something violent going on. Such as in 2010 the top 20 games out in the market were violent related. When a kid sees in a video game that he can beat someone else up and get away with it they think they can do that in real life. This will increase bullying and kids are being taught not to bully. Every kid plays video games even if it’s a racing game or a shooting game. In 2008, 97% of kids from the age of 12-17 played video games. Most M rated games have sexual violence and when a kid sees that in a game and then beats the girl up. The crime rate for rape will increase as it has. A study in 2009 found that it only takes a child four minutes of playing a game to make him have aggressive and violent thoughts going through his head. The critics of violent video game has that bully has increase 32% because of violent video games. Also in the study when a child sees blood when beating up or killing someone in a game he will have more aggressive thoughts than normal.
The case that I chose to analyze is Reno v. ACLU. It is the first Internet related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided. Seven of the justices found the argued provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the Internet is similar to a shopping mall or library not a broadcast medium as the government refered to it. The majority opinion for this case was that the Internet is a unique marketplace for ideas. The ruling states that while there is a large amount of pornographic material out there, it normally isn’t come across on accident. They stated that the CDA already holds back a good amount of speech that is alright for adult to adult conversations, which they do have a constitutional right to receive. While they recognize the CDA efforts to protect children from harmful speech and pornographic material, it still does not justify the unnecessarily broad suspension of speech. The final outcome was that they found that what the CDA was trying to do would violate speakers messages who are rightfully protected under the First Amendment.
Most people see a violent video game being sold and do not think twice about it. The sale of violent video games in our current system is normal. In 2008, 298.2 million video games were sold in the US, totaling $11.7 billion in revenue. Six of the top ten best-selling video games included violence, with four of the games carrying a "Mature" rating recommended for persons aged 17 and older (Procon). In June 2011, the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association California attempted to enforce a statute that gives a punishment for selling violent video games to minors (Herard 515). Entertainment Merchants Association took this statute to court saying it violated rights given to the people under the first amendment. Both sides of the case had a well constructed argument. The Supreme Court had a final decision of seven to two. Even though the decision was not very close, both sides need to be looked at to understand how the decision came about.
In 1998, the US software industry sold $6.3 billion worth of video games (see Unknown). Not bad for an industry that didn't exist 25 years ago! Yet despite its continued growth, all is not well in the video game industry. School shootings in Littleton, Colorado; Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; Conyers, Georgia and many other towns have shocked the nation (see Malcolm). Understandably, grieving parents and sympathetic citizens are searching for a cause for this "outbreak" of youth violence. It is natural to assume, "when children, the symbol of innocence, commit the severest of crimes, then something must be going wrong with society." (see Maker)
The debate about media violence has been going on for hundreds of years. The newest form of media being scrutinized is videogames. I will be taking you through this debate and sharing with you some things that you may find surprising. This is not a new topic and has ...
In conclusion, Game sales continue to up while violence continues to go down, it can help you with anger or your problems from your day instead of increasing rage, and it is ruled by the supreme court that it doesn’t. But so what? Why is this information important if people 5 years later are still trying to prove that video games do cause violence? Shouldn’t people be asking why parents give their 7 year old kids these shooting games that have been rated by the ESRB at a game for people 13 years old or
"Monkey see, Monkey do." Everyone has heard this phrase sometime in his or her life. This phrase is simple, yet very applicable to today's debate. When a child sees someone or something doing something. They will of course follow suit and imitate the action being performed. Children do not know any better. Therefore they are innocent and deserve to be respected. It is for these following reasons that we argue for the censorship of harmful materials that could influence a child or children into violent acts, expressions, and other dangerous actions. Through television, video games, and movies, children and teens view countless acts of violence, brutality, and terror as part of entertainment. They become conditioned to associating violence with entertainment. First-person shooter video games develop our children's skills in operating weapons. The games reward marksmanship, and further reinforce the association of killing with entertainment. In the past, the heroes of movie and television shows were usually people who strictly followed the law. Now, heroes are often people who take the law into their own hands, who see an injustice or evil and seek to rectify it personally, sometimes brutally, regardless of the consequences. Such portrayals signal, to a child, society's approval of that behavior.
Video games have been a rapidly expanding industry since their inception in the 1970s. Along with their growth have come concerns about violent video games and their effects on aggression and violence in young people. The endless numbers of school shootings have pushed this issue to the forefront. These events brought about the question: do violent video games induce aggression in youth? That’s the question I set out to answer by looking at research. The research shows that there is a link between playing video games and increases in aggression in adolescents. What implications does this fact have ethically? It means that video game producers and distributors need to be held responsible for their releases and the way they end up in the hands of kids.
Video games have been a growing industry for about 30 years and has never been bigger. As a whole, the industry made around $66 billion last year, and is expected to make even more this coming year. Because of this growth, gamers have sought better graphics, better stories, and even more violence. Developers have satisfied this want with more M rated games that include heavier violence, stronger language, sexual themes, and intense blood and gore. Past acts and laws have been put in place to try and eliminate violence in video games. These laws have stiffled the industry's freedom of expression and caus...
...any laws and children now days aren’t afraid of taking risks. To make the world a better place violent video games should be censored or banned because it’s not about what type of world we leave our children, it’s about what type of children we leave for the world.
Violent video games have become more realistic every year. Children spend about 40 hours seated in front of a screen killing cartoon characters. It has been debated whether minors under the age of 18 should play violent video games that contain physical harm, killing, and sexual assault. In the contrary, people say video games increases the capacity of learning of children, but violent video games cause great damages. Although there are an increase learning skills playing video games, violent video games should be prohibited to minors because it changes an individual behavior, physical, and brain.
Violent video games should not be banned from the United States. Violent video games are not related to real-world violence. These games in fact can enhance reading and visual skills that can be used in the real world. Even if a state was to ban the sale of violent video games they would be going against the constitution. Also statistics show that while violent video game sales increase teen violence decreases. There should be no banning of violent video games anytime soon.