The Dilemma of Government in Controlling Violent Games - Essay Example

Government’s Dilemma in Controlling Violent Games The culture of video gaming is increasing than ever among the US teens and younger children. Currently, more children are plying video games more than they concentrate in their academics. The video gaming trend is resulting in increased antisocial behaviors and violence among children. For example, in 1999 two students at Columbine High School, Colorado shot and killed 134 pupils and finally killed themselves (International Debate Education Association IDEA, 2012). The students were reported to have played the video game “Doom,” and were inspired by it. This led to heated debates between two opposing sides. While advocates argued in favor of a restriction in sales of violent video games, groups of opponents led by the game developers argued against such move. They explained that correlation between the violent video games and the acts of the two students were incidental and could not be used as a justification (IDEA, 2012). While proponents argued about a link between violence and increased watching of violent games, the opponents denied any link between violent behaviors and watching of violent videos. Therefore despite the efforts the government has undertaken to restrict violent video games, the government is not able to regulate them as required due to legal implications and high demand of such games in the market. In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on selling violent games to minors. The Supreme Court found the Californian law that sought to restrict the sale of violent games to minors to be in contradiction with the free speech rights and was overturned. The judgment was overwhelming in a 7 to 2 decision and declared that the Californian statute against the sale of violent games was in serious violation of the rights protection under the First Amendment (Richey, 2011). The Californian State as the judges agreed had the right to protect children against harm by such violent games. However, the judges noted that such powers cannot be free floating to restrict all ideas to which children have possibilities of being exposed to (Richey, 2011). This was the first ruling on violent materials restriction, which was a huge setback to the California state in its bid to protect children against harm caused by such violent games. It implies that the government is not able to restrict or control such video games as required. The government has weak laws and statutes aimed at limiting such sale of violent games to minors. In 1968 the Supreme Court upheld a New York statute that sought to restrict and ban any sale of nude and obscene materials to underage children. The court found that the government indeed had the right and the power to regulate and restrict sale of such sexual materials to children without violating the protection of free speech as stated under the First Amendment (Mcmahan 2013). However, the Supreme Court on the Californian case rejected any application of the same principles by arguing speech of violence is not obscene; thus the 1968 ruling could not be applied in the ban of violent materials. This revealed a serious anomaly under the First Amendment. As one of the 2 dissenting judges, Stephen Breyer noted, there was no sense of preventing a child from accessing a nude picture of a woman, while in the same violent games children are allowed to view such women and even go further to strangle them to death virtually (Mcmahan 2013) . The law in this case is contradictory and needs a more elaborate evaluation of the First Amendment to include violent materials under the same category with obscene materials to facilitate the government to use the, law in protecting children against such violent materials. Psychiatrists and research suggest that offering blanket blame to violent games would e missing the point behind violence in children, which would hugely impact on efforts by the government to restrict such games. Kathy Royer a clinical nurse specialist at 4Kid Help Center for Child Adolescent Psychiatry, Ohio explained that research has indeed indicated that children playing violent games may lead to aggressive behavior (Mcmahan, 2013). More in depth evidence based research on the effects of violent games are rare, though a study by Ohio State University indicated that continued playing of violent games could actually make people more aggressive with time, though no research has been able to link such violent games to violent and criminal trends among the youth (Mcmahan, 2013). The lack of a clear line between the two was observed as President Barack Obama requested a $ 10milion budget to allow for Centers for Diseases Control an Prevention, and other related agencies is to carry out detailed research on causes of gun violence, particularly finding a relation between the increasing gun violence trends among the youth and violent video games (Macmahan, 2013). This move suggested the government is still not convinced on relation between violent games and increased juvenile violence, which implies it cannot restrict such violence games yet. However, there are strong feelings that the government can indeed control and restrict the sale of violent games. The government through its legal and administrative structures has succeeded significantly in restricting the sale of alcohol and obscene materials to children. This implies that the government has the mechanisms administratively and legally to effect bans that would not contravene the First Amendment, but that would restrict such violent games. This wedel include labeling such games and restricting them to adults only. This will however require legal mechanisms to facilitate such laws sand statutes. Moreover, the government has the right and obligation to protect the minority by ensuring healthy development and controlling anything that would affect such development. Evidence based research as indicated has shown that violence games increase the aggression in children, which may be a precursor to violence though not directly correlated. Such research would be enough indication for the government to act in restricting the sale of violent games to children due to already indemnified harm. Parents defaulting on their obligations to look after children and offer their children solid and moral up bringing have been explained as one major contributor in children’s antisocial behaviors such as increased violence (IDEA, 2012). The government through its local authorities can involve parents in restricting children’s’ access to such materials. This would include the government carrying out massive sensitization campaigns in all areas where parents and policy holders are involved in discussion on the effects of violent games in children. Parents would then be required to play their roles and duties. They have the largest responsibilities in ensuring their children do not access materials that pervade their judgment such as the violent materials. Increased public sensitization would have parents and other community members take charge of educating their children against the dangers of such games and ensuring children are more involved in constructive and positive recreation activities such as physical games. Parents in most cases are the ones who buy such games for children. When the community is aware of the benefits that children and the family as a whole would derive from physical gaming compared to passive gaming, it would be more effective in putting in place mechanisms to ensure children have enough time for physical games within the community by providing the necessary infrastructure. Though there are proved serious effects of increasing violence video gaming among children, the government is not able to completely restrict and ban the sale of the video games to children due to legal implications. The Supreme Court on a Californian statute that sought to restrict such materials made a ruling that such restriction would be illegal and against the First Amendment. However, the government having the right and obligation to protect children may involve other methods that would be legal and effective. Such would include passing laws against such sale of violent materials, involving the community and parents in more proactive ways, or even classifying such materials in the same class with obscene materials , which are restricted by law against sale to children,. Therefore, unless the government involves such methods, it is not able to restrict or ban the sale of violence games to children. Work Cited International Debate Education Association, This house would restrict violent video games, IDEA, 2012 http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/house-would-restrict-violent-video-games (Accessed 15th April, 2013) Mcmahan Kim Do violent video games lead to real violence? The Columbian , March 1, 2013, http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/01/do-violent-video-gameslead-to-real-violence/(Accessed 15th April, 2013) Richey Warren, Supreme Court strikes down ban on selling violent video games to minors, the Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2011http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0627/Supreme-Court-strikes-down-ban-on-selling-violent-video-games-to-minors (Accessed 15th April, 2013) Read More