Recently, we all avoided a major tragedy, and I thank whatever higher power may exist every day for not becoming another one of those stories on the news of unnecessary lives lost. Whenever something like this happens though, an interesting argument gets brought up that I don't think enough people know fully about, they just see the headlines from the outside and assume it to be true. One of the main things that people blame for mass shootings is violent video games and how they make people more violent. It would seem obvious for that statement to be true. It is so obvious and assumed, in fact, that even the President of the United States has taken it upon himself to put the blame for the violence in our country on violent video games.
Being a Game Design major and someone who loves video games as much as I do, it is almost offensive that violent video games are as universally panned as they are. Like the author of this article in the Los Angeles Times, I believe that is is not violent video games that causes mass shootings. This belief causes people to want to ban violent video games or make it illegal to sell them to children, which California tried to do in 2011, but was rejected by the Supreme Court. The problem with trying to ban violent video games or limit the sale on them, is that video games are protected under the 1st Amendment. A video game industry has a right to produce video games and have them be sold, whether they are violent or not. It is their creative property and they cannot be told that their game is not allowed to be sold. Because this is the case, it is hard for politicians (both Democrat and Republican) to make cases against violent video games, since there is not much to be done about them. There may not be a need to do anything though, as studies show that violent video games do increase violent thought immediately after playing, but not to the point of changing a person or making them act on their violence. There is no correlation.
To me as a Game Design major, this is a concerning argument to me for a few reasons. One, people are more likely to judge and profile Game Design majors and Game Designers as people who are going to "shoot up" a school, and it makes for a harder time. Another reason, and the one that pertains more to this class is the idea that id any law were to be passed, then what I create can have a limit put on it and I can be told what I can and cannot do in video games by the law, which to me is a dangerous line to cross and I think it's a line that should be left alone.
Being a Game Design major and someone who loves video games as much as I do, it is almost offensive that violent video games are as universally panned as they are. Like the author of this article in the Los Angeles Times, I believe that is is not violent video games that causes mass shootings. This belief causes people to want to ban violent video games or make it illegal to sell them to children, which California tried to do in 2011, but was rejected by the Supreme Court. The problem with trying to ban violent video games or limit the sale on them, is that video games are protected under the 1st Amendment. A video game industry has a right to produce video games and have them be sold, whether they are violent or not. It is their creative property and they cannot be told that their game is not allowed to be sold. Because this is the case, it is hard for politicians (both Democrat and Republican) to make cases against violent video games, since there is not much to be done about them. There may not be a need to do anything though, as studies show that violent video games do increase violent thought immediately after playing, but not to the point of changing a person or making them act on their violence. There is no correlation.
To me as a Game Design major, this is a concerning argument to me for a few reasons. One, people are more likely to judge and profile Game Design majors and Game Designers as people who are going to "shoot up" a school, and it makes for a harder time. Another reason, and the one that pertains more to this class is the idea that id any law were to be passed, then what I create can have a limit put on it and I can be told what I can and cannot do in video games by the law, which to me is a dangerous line to cross and I think it's a line that should be left alone.
Comments
Post a Comment