www.michaeladelberg.com
Parents may soon consider June 27, 2011 one of the more important dates in recent history. On this day the Supreme Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The libertarian in me celebrated, the parent in me cringed. When the two clash, my libertarian ideals take a back seat to the realpolitik of parenting.
As someone in the process of raising three boys, I see the negative influence of violent video games. I will set aside the argument that there is a body of research linking anti-social behaviors in adults with repeated exposure to depictions of death and violence as children. I am no expert on this research and while it concerns me, that is someone else’s argument to make.
For me there are two big concerns with these games based on my experiences with them: First, the games I have seen—particularly the very popular Call of Duty game series—stupidly depict war by feeding players a steady diet of easy-to-kill enemies for graphic extermination. Boys chortle as they blast people to shreds. I understand that there are settings on some games to tone down the gore, but even the toned down versions do not change the central fact that the games are built around blowing people away. Second, too many boys patronize these games to the point of obsession, drowning out healthier activities such as sports, music, and reading. We decry that American children are growing dumber and fatter—video games are not the problem, but they contribute to the problem.
The logic behind the court’s decision is unconvincing. The majority opinion argues that children have always been exposed to violence, i.e., fairy tales like Hansel & Gretel are built around a manipulative witch trying lure and kill two little children. True enough, but there is a huge difference between storytelling and today’s video games where the storyline is repeated killing with automatic weapons. Certainly, watching dozens of bloody deaths (close-up on large flat screen TVs) is different than being told a story that includes gory details.
There is long-established precedent for protecting children from products that society considers harmful. Children cannot buy Penthouse, Marlboro’s, or Budweiser. Schools ban soda sales. The court’s decision seems to suggest that society, through the engine of the state (not the Federal government), cannot impose restrictions on violent video games that are consistent with those restrictions placed on other harmful products.
Like many, I am worried about the creeping nanny state and consider myself a pretty open-minded parent in terms of exposing my kids to different things. Fortunately, my children are rarely alone in the house so my wife and I can enforce moderation on the amount of time our boys spend with video games. But there are millions of single parent families in America and millions more with two parents working full-time. Moderation is not easily enforced in these settings.
Let’s face it, kids get hold of harmful products—cigarettes, liquor, porn, pot, etc. The California law was not going to create heaven-on-earth. But it was a law enacted through appropriate democratic processes because a majority in the State wanted to place some checks on a product widely believed to be harmful to children. The checks put in place were consistent with checks put in place for other harmful products. I can’t figure out why the Supreme Court believes that violent video games deserve protections not granted to other harmful products.
No comments:
Post a Comment