Two days ago, the Supreme Court struck down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. A lot of people are complaining about this ruling, that we're not "protecting" children. Please.
I was about ten years old when the original Mortal Kombat game was in arcades, and being debated in congress. It made national news because people were getting their heads ripped off, and getting burned alive. I loved this game. I am currently a very well-adjusted married man, with not a violent bone in my body. Every kid I knew played Mortal Kombat, and spent hours on it. None of them have ever tried to decapitate me.
People who complain about this seriously undermine the intelligence of children. Roger Ebert, for example, was quoted a saying "Supreme Court says anything goes in violent video games sold to children." I find this amazing, since Roger Ebert has often complained about Hollywood's lack of apreciation for the intelligence of children, often using terms like "audience insulting" (like his famous review of the movie "North"). How then can he insult the intelligence of the average child, by assuming they are so unintelligent as to robotically emulate what they see, without the common sense to differentiate between fantasy and reality?
Don't get me wrong; I understand the need for limitations. I had an uncle who lived in the same house as me for a while; and at nine years of age, I often indulged in my uncles porn mags and videos when he was away at work. Though I ended up with (what I think was) a normal sexual appetite for a teenage a boy, I completely understand why there are laws against minors viewing it. However, I wouldn't take the leap and claim that a little boy's morals are corrupted by viewing what is essentially a natural act; I say "essentially", because porn is very often a completely unaccurate portrayal of what sex is really like.
This brings up another point in the video game debate in Congress; sexuality.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said, "What kind of First Amendment would permit the governement to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"
While that makes sense, Justice Antonin Scalia had said this: "Our cases make clear that obscenity covers only depictions of sexual conduct, and we have previously rejected attempts to shoehorn violence into that category."
Justice Scalia's point reiterates something true about American culture: violence has never been seen as obscene, while even the hint of sexuality in media can cause controversy. We can go back to silent films where cowboys killed scores of badguys, and never has there been any protest that these films incite violence in movie-goers. In fact, toy guns and even BB guns (which actually can be dangerous) were hot items for young children. Which is worse: having a child act out shooting someone with a gun (a realistic possibility) or have a child play a game simulating decapitation (a crime so rare, it is unrealistic a child will ever do this)? On the other hand, premarital sex is quite a realistic thing that most parents don't want their kids coming anywhere near; thus, sex in media is so much more widely demonized.
So where is the line drawn, then?
I don't know. What I do know, is that you can't draw the line based on insulting beliefs about the intelligence of the average child. Honestly, the amount of non-videogame violence in media is astounding; thinking that playing a game--with what is essentially the same level of violence you'd find in an R-rated horror flick--will "harm" or "corrupt" the average child, is just loudacris.
I'm one of just untold millions of chldren who've played ultra-violent games, who grew up to continue playing games with even more graphic and more realistic violence, while living a completely normal and well-adjusted life. Keep this in mind the next time you think a child is too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and real life.
No comments:
Post a Comment