Should violent videogames be banned?

[gumboot]

1. does this influence extend beyond being "slight"? I.e. how significant is it?

There is an influence, but it's minimal, and drowned out by a plethora of other far more significant influences.

2. what responsibility does this place on video game makers?

None, that I can see. At least, not unless all other manufacturers and artists are likewise required to take responsibility for the actions of those who might use their products.

In New Zealand, we have legally binding age classifications for all media, including video games. The game manufacturer doesn't really have to do anything, as they government will classify it. As I understand it, there's already a classification system in place in the US, like there is in film.

3. if the influence is way more than just "slight", then should violent videogames be banned?

If the influence were significant (relative to other influences), then yes, some sort of action should be taken to restrict video game violence. But since the influence isn't significant, there's no justification to restrict them.

Also, what does a videogame need to have to be called a "violent" game for the purposes of banning? And it's also possible, perhaps, that some games should be banned while others shouldn't, so what criterion should be used to determine that?

Obviously, if their influence was significant, any restrictions should be based on what exactly it is that has said influence.

The same question could be asked for violent movies, violent paintings, violent novels, etc.

Of course.

 

[Irony]

On 3, I suppose I didn't fully answer it. My answer assumed "way more than slight" was something along the lines of The Catcher in the Rye, and it's well known tendency to make kids want to kill John Lennon.

Supposing for the moment that there were some medium which demonstrably caused violent psycosis in a non-trivial amount of it's viewers, then yes, I could see a ban, much like I think the ban for the porygon episode of Pokemon was warranted (look it up if your not familiar). But in order for something like that to ever be warranted, it will take far more than just vague "influence", it takes an outright causal relationship.

 

[Brian-M]

Also, what does a videogame need to have to be called a "violent" game for the purposes of banning? And it's also possible, perhaps, that some games should be banned while others shouldn't, so what criterion should be used to determine that?

The thread title had me wondering the same thing. For example, does Space Invaders count as a violent game? After all, the game consists of blasting an endless series of alien spaceships out of the sky, and blowing up a presumably occupied vehicle most certainly counts as a violent act.

No violent video games should not be banned. That pesky first amendment will not allow that. Ever.

Exactly which part of the first amendment addresses the publication and distribution of games? Besides which, since the US decided to abridge the freedom of speech in regards to obscenity, there's no reason it couldn't decide to do the same thing in regards to violence.

You could easily re-write the Miller test (currently used for censoring obscenity) to apply to violence instead. It would ask...

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient ferocious interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual violent conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(I'm not advocating the censorship of violence, just pointing out that the First Amendment isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle.)

 

[Quad4_72]

Actually I thought that was your argument since it was your that stated...

Well, not sure why you thought I would be referring to Australia when talking about the first amendment in the United States Constitution, but no I was not referring to Australia. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Quad4_72]

Exactly which part of the first amendment addresses the publication and distribution of games? Besides which, since the US decided to abridge the freedom of speech in regards to obscenity, there's no reason it couldn't decide to do the same thing in regards to violence.

You could easily re-write the Miller test (currently used for censoring obscenity) to apply to violence instead. It would ask...

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient ferocious interest,
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual violent conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(I'm not advocating the censorship of violence, just pointing out that the First Amendment isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle.)

Now ask yourself honestly, if someone presented legislation to ban violence in video games, do you really think that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of such a censorship?

 

[Brian-M]

Now ask yourself honestly, if someone presented legislation to ban violence in video games, do you really think that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of such a censorship?

Nope. But just because they won't do it doesn't mean they can't do it.

If it were the widespread and strongly-held view of the general populace that violence was as offensive and immoral as explicit sex scenes are currently regarded, they would. But most people tend to be fairly blasé about violence in the media.

 

[Halfcentaur]

somebody actually posted a graph in another thread that showed that violent crime in the USA actually went down about the same time stuff like Doom and Quake ...etc first appeared and has been steadily dropping since then.

You ban violent games, they will watch violent movies

you ban violent movies, they will read violent books

you ban violent books they will be bored and go out and become pimps*









*- last part may have been made up

Violent crime in general dropped in the early 90s without a hitch and is now at 50 year record lows.

Violent crime among American youth reached it's peak in the early 90s and then in 1992 began to noticably decrease, a decrease which also not stopped decreasing now 20 years later.

Violent video games really didn't even become an issue for the media until Mortal Kombat decided to have blood and fatalities in their game. Mortal Kombat was released in October of 1992.

Mortal Kombat is the sole reason violence has decreased among youth on a national level.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Really. How's that "pesky first amendment" working against the violent video game ban in Australia.

That's a misnomer. Refused classification isn't the same thing as banning. Now that Australia has an R category for video games, expect less games to be refused classification.

 

[Irony]

That's a misnomer. Refused classification isn't the same thing as banning. Now that Australia has an R category for video games, expect less games to be refused classification.

Actually, yes, it is. Under Australian law a game requires a classification to be sold, so a refusing classification to a game is banning it.

And yes, this should be less of an issue now that there's an R category.

 

[StankApe]

man, Australia sounds like it sucks

 

[Brian-M]

Violent video games really didn't even become an issue for the media until Mortal Kombat decided to have blood and fatalities in their game. Mortal Kombat was released in October of 1992.

Mortal Kombat is the sole reason violence has decreased among youth on a national level.

I just stumbled across this: http://www.parenting.com/gallery/violent-video-games?pnid=501500

It's "10 Violent Video Games to Avoid" on a parenting website. Mortal Kombat is the second game mentioned.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Actually, yes, it is. Under Australian law a game requires a classification to be sold, so a refusing classification to a game is banning it.

Banning is NOT the same as refusing classification:

Classification is mandatory, and films that are rated Refused Classification by the ACB are banned for sale, hire or public exhibition, carrying a maximum fine of $275,000 and/or 10 years jail if an individual/organisation is found to be in breach of this. It is, however, legal to possess RC films and games (except in Western Australia and certain parts of the Northern Territory), unless they contain illegal content (e.g. child pornography).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board

This is why it was always possible to import RC games from overseas when the censors were unable to provide said title(s) with an R rating.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, not sure why you thought I would be referring to Australia when talking about the first amendment in the United States Constitution, but no I was not referring to Australia. Sorry for the confusion.

Well since the OP didn't specify a country, and the board is an international one with people from all over the world on it, I just assumed by your bringing it up that you were one of those Americans that believe that your constitution is worth more then that paper its written on outside of the borders of the US. My apologies for getting that wrong.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Banning is NOT the same as refusing classification:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board

This is why it was always possible to import RC games from overseas when the censors were unable to provide said title(s) with an R rating.

How come you didn't highlight this part?

Classification is mandatory, and films that are rated Refused Classification by the ACB are banned for sale, hire or public exhibition

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Wiki's choice of language to describe RC content that is not illegal to own or use, wasn't particularly relevant.

 

[This is The End]

I just assumed by your bringing it up that you were one of those Americans that believe that your constitution is worth more then that paper its written on outside of the borders of the US.

Why do I not believe that?

You seriously think that that poster thought that the US Constitution applies outside of the US???

Just a yes or no would be awesome, not a "well there are people that believe that". I want to know if you seriously thought there was a possibility that poster believed it or was implying it.

 

[This is The End]

Wiki's choice of language to describe RC content that is not illegal to own or use, wasn't particularly relevant.

I would have to agree.

If it is still implicitly legal to import it, then by the very definition, it is not completely banned.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why do I not believe that?

You seriously think that that poster thought that the US Constitution applies outside of the US???

Just a yes or no would be awesome, not a "well there are people that believe that". I want to know if you seriously thought there was a possibility that poster believed it or was implying it.

Well his claim was that said constitution would prevent bannings in stating that it would never be allowed, ever.

If I said to you in an international forum that something would never be allowed, ever, would you assume that I was meaning just in one country?

 

[This is The End]

Well his claim was <snip>

Let's forget about that posters supposed claim for a minute and focus on your clear claim and me asking you to confirm it.

Did you really just assume, or were you just saying that, perhaps being somewhat rhetorical?

I just assumed by your bringing it up that you were one of those Americans that believe that your constitution is worth more then that paper its written on outside of the borders of the US.

Why do I not believe that?

You seriously think that that poster thought that the US Constitution applies outside of the US???
Just a yes or no would be awesome, not a "well there are people that believe that". I want to know if you seriously thought there was a possibility that poster believed it or was implying it.

Again, just a yes or no would be awesome. If you would like to back off that claim I would understand.

 

[Dcdrac]

Not a smart move because video games are not causing the issue, over easy access to guns is exacerbating a cultural problem.