The Issue of Video Game Censorship

The controversy over video game violence has been an issue since their invention.  But video games seem to be more of a controversy in today's world then in the past.  The difference is there are more games out there today, and the graphics have evolved to look more realistic.  Many forms of entertainment have gone through some sort of controversy over the act of censorship; since video games are relatively newer, they are now the focus.  The question of censorship comes when video games contain violence that some believe is too violent for the public, mainly young individuals, to be exposed to.  Advancement in technology has made video games very realistic in its content.  The realistic nature of these video games is the main reason some believe that they should be censored more so then they are now.  Mainly there are just two sides to the issue of video game censorship; there are those that support censorship and those that oppose censorship of video games.  The argument for censorship mainly centers on censoring video games to today's youth.  They say that video games can cause aggression and violence in those that play them and young people mainly to not have the capacity to tell the difference between what is real and what is not.  Those opposing censorship say that censorship of video games is in violation of a person's First Amendment rights of free speech and expression.  They believe that video games are no more harmful to a person than any other form of entertainment.

The Supporting Side
The main point for those that support censorship of violent video games is the fact that they say that these video games are exposing young people to things they should not be exposed to.  An advocate of censorship, Jack Thompson has called video games “murder simulators.”  Others say that video games can make children anti-social, and can cause aggression that may have not been there if not for the games.  They blame the shootings at Columbine Colorado on violent video games, such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D, which were games that involved first person shooting.  What makes video games more influential than other types of entertainment is the fact that players can interact with the game, unlike movies.  Many games are centered on characters committing some sort of crime, and if the crime is successful the player is rewarded.  So children may believe that there is some sort of incentive for committing crimes or not believe that there are any consequences to their actions.  Harsher regulations on video games would help ensure that young people would not be exposed to such violence.

The Opposing Side
In the United States those opposed to censorship focus mainly on a person's First Amendment right to free expression.  Other forms of entertainment, such as movies, they say has just as much violence as video games do.  The correlation is made between aggression and violent video games, but does not mean the aggression is caused by just video games.  Another reason for opposing censorship is the belief that parents should be the ones that censor what and what not their children can play, not the government.  Censorship for video games has continually been struck down by the government because they violate the first amendment. And the evidence that has been made is not conclusive; therefore playing violent video games does not mean that a person will commit violent acts. Though research has been done on the effects of video games nothing has been proven.

Closing
For those that support censorship for video games especially violent ones are going to be the cause for most of the aggression in society.  Until there is concrete scientific evidence that shows violent video games leads young people to violence, supporters can only speculate what video games will do.  And those that oppose censorship will cling to the fact that there is not sufficient evidence that supports the claim that supporters make.  The First Amendment will be used to say that video games, even the violent ones are just another form of expression and should not be suppressed.  For both sides this is definitely an issue that for both sides’ people are passionate about.

These sites were used to gather information from the World Wide Web.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/v/vi/video_game_controversy.htm
This website gave good information on the history of video games.  It also talked about the different policies that different countries took concerning video games.  I didn’t sense that there was a bias either way about censorship.

http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/stpp4C03/ClassEssay/videogames.htm#1

This site contemplates whether or not violence in video games is cause for aggressive behavior.  It seems to lean in the direction that violent video games don’t necessarily mean aggressive behavior. 

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T101200.asp

This site was clear in favor of censorship.  It focused mainly on what parents could do protect their children from viewing anything they viewed as harmful in entertainment.

http://www.jackthompson.org/ 
Is the site for a lawyer by the name of Jack Thompson.  The site is very pro-censorship.  It explains the work that Jack Thompson has done in trying to monitor the distribution of video games and their content to young people.  The site includes many cases that Thompson has been on, and his activism in protest of violent video games.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16183

This site is very anti-censorship; it clearly states that they think though laws have been introduced to ban video games they don’t work because they are shot down because they violate the first amendment.