It’s the most wonderful time of the (fucking) year! 😉
Yes, it’s Freedom to Read Week again, a holiday celebrated by librarians, writers, book lovers, artists, filmmakers and anyone else interested in the issue of censorship and free expression.
As usual, I’m planning to do a week of posts on different topics to do with FTRW and since I just bought my eight year old a copy of a fairly violent video game today, I thought I’d start with that topic.
Video games have long been the target of those who would restrict access and censor under the view that there is a link between violent video games and violent behaviour in real life (which is arguable at best unless you get your science from the likes of Dr. Phil.)
The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who was no friend of the left and liberals, did bring to my attention one of his rulings that I do agree with – his judgement in a case where the State of California attempted to put limits on the ability of young people to access certain video games.
Scalia wrote on behalf of the majority, in a 7-2 ruling against the state of California’s attempt to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors. California was attempting to treat violent games like cigarettes and alcohol, arguing that violent video games, unlike other forms of violent entertainment, could cause changes in children’s minds and actions.
In an age where most decisions are split very closely along ideological lines (usually 5-4 with John Roberts as the swing vote, depending on the issue), it’s interesting that this 2011 decision went 7-2 with the majority saying this:
Scalia and six other justices would have none of it and instead affirmed that video games, like movies, books, music and all other artforms are speech and are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
This is one of those articles I occasionally post where I just want to quote the whole thing so I’d encourage you to read the link above to learn more about the Supreme Court’s thinking on the issue.
Well-known for his engaging writing style, I’ll summarize some of Scalia’s reasoning:
The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of [various] psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: “[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology.”
Even taking for granted Dr. Anderson’s conclusions…those effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. In his testimony in a similar lawsuit, Dr. Anderson admitted that the “effect sizes” of children’s exposure to violent video games are “about the same” as that produced by their exposure to violence on television. And he admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, id., at 1304, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated “E” (appropriate for all ages), or even when they “vie[w] a picture of a gun.”
Of course, California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoons, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns. The consequence is that its regulation is wildly underinclusive when judged against its asserted justification, which in our view is alone enough to defeat it.
As for Pace and video games, it’ll be little surprise that my approach is to put little restriction on what he plays but that I will make sure to take the time to talk to him about the games, what they portray, how that relates to “real life” and so on.
