1

Jake Smith
2/26/2009
Dr. Saiz
English 1022

Why We Should not Ban Violent Video Games

Video games have gained a bad reputation in recent years; the majority of which

referring to the explicit material (violence, adult language, sexuality, et cetera) depicted

in many mature-rated games. One of the main concerns of groups such as Mothers

Against Videogame Addiction and Violence (MAVAV for short) is this mature content

being viewed by their young and impressionable children. But is this the video game’s

fault? Why should video games be targeted amongst the many other forms of media

(television, movies, et cetera)? Should it not be the parent monitoring their children’s

entertainment? Groups like the Video Game Voters Network (VGVN for short) advocate

this principle. Violent video games should not be banned because not only would it set a

precedent for the censorship of other media, but because it would be a great injustice to

the video game industry and community.

Video games have evolved immensely since the days of pong. Video games are no

longer something to do by yourself in your basement on a rainy afternoon. Entire virtual

worlds have been created; allowing people to socialize and network with other gamers

all over the world. Video games have become a great tool for learning and studies show

that a more interactive learning environment is a more effective tool than lecturing

(Federation of American Scientists). Now imagine all that potential being taken away
 2

simply because the game depicted some blood and violence. Is that fair to the millions of

gamers worldwide who enjoy these games every day? Banning video games that depict

violence and other adult content would not stop minors from experiencing explicit

material and would result in punishing many others who have done nothing wrong. But

what evidence is there that violent video games are bad for society? According to

Lawrence Sherman, a University of Pennsylvania criminologist,

“[j]ust as violent video games were pouring into American homes on the crest of

the personal-computer wave, juvenile violence began to plummet… Juvenile

murder charges dropped by about two-thirds from 1993 to the end of the decade

and show no signs of going back up. If video games are so deadly, why has their

widespread use been followed by reductions in murder?” (Beck and Wade).

Courts across the nation are also agreeing with Sherman. On December 22 nd, 2005,

California district judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on a bill that

would ban the sale and rental of “especially violent video games” to minors under the

age of 18. Similar rulings have occurred in other states such as Illinois, Michigan, and

Washington (Glendhill). The main reason for the ruling came from the Entertainment

Software Association’s claim that the ban would infringe upon the rights granted by the

first amendment. The judge agreed stating, “[t]he plaintiffs have shown at least that

serious questions are raised concerning the states' ability to restrict minors' First

Amendment rights in connection with exposure to violent video games, including the
 3

question of whether there is a causal connection between access to such games and

psychological or other harm to children" (Glendhill).

There are studies that show that violence depicted in video games could be

damaging to young, impressionable children, but many of these studies are done in

closed situations and don’t go very deep into the child’s personal life to look at other

potential causes. In 2004, Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson conducted a two-

year, 1.5 million dollar study on the effects of violent (and non-violent) video games on

children and their home and social lives. Their studies found no direct link between

violent video games and violent behavior; rather it is much more dependent on the

child’s mental maturity. Of the 1,254 middle-school aged children they studied, 78 of

them had mild learning disabilities (Kutner). Kutner and Olson found that those children

with mild learning disabilities were more apt to play video games due to the fact that

they were more likely to be excluded or ostracized from social interactions. Michael

Jellinek, M.D., a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and

chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, says that

“[a] lot of people don’t appreciate how much these kids get criticized, and how

self-critical the kids themselves are. They don’t understand how liberating it is to

be in control of something like a computer where they can pause and start over,

where their work comes out neat and organized instead of messy. They don’t
 4

understand how much of a relief this is. The computer is unconditionally

accepting, while most parents and teachers aren’t."

Kutner’s and Olson’s study also found that playing video games can expand a child’s

social standing among their peers. Being particularly good at a popular game gives some

children (especially those with mild learning disabilities or those that do not participate

in athletics) a boost in self-esteem that they otherwise would not receive (Kutner and

Olson). Video games have also shown to be helpful educationally. Most video games

(even violent ones) are essential large logic puzzles. A video game allows the player to

make mistakes and try different approaches to a problem in a fun and low-risk

environment. This teaches basic problem solving and introduces the initial concepts of

the scientific method. This benefit, however, does little for the advancement in non-

logistic learning such as history and art studies.

Any statistics that show a negative effect on a child’s behavior only matter if the

child is playing games outside their maturity level. The Entertainment Software Rating

Board (ESRB for short) has a crystal clear rating system similar to that of the Motion

Picture Association of America’s rating system for rating movies. The ESRB rates every

game and designates a label for the maturity level of the intended audience ranging from

E for everyone to AO for Adults Only. Games also have an age next to the rating symbol

to simplify the rating even more and eliminate all confusion on the game’s intended

audience. Many violent and bloody games such as the Grand Theft Auto games and the
 5

Halo trilogy are given a rating of M for mature audiences (ages 17 and up). Very few

games receive a rating of AO (ages 18 and up) and some companies, such as Nintendo

and Sony, do not release games with an AO rating on their consoles; Manhunt 2 being a

recent example of this occurrence. The developers of Manhunt 2, Rockstar Games, later

modified the game, reducing the amount of violence and carnage, to lower the game’s

rating to M so that Nintendo and Sony would allow for the release of Rockstar’s game on

their consoles (Martin). Not releasing the game would have resulted in millions of

dollars in lost revenues from game sales, so it is quite safe to say that money is not

everything to the game companies (contrary to some anti-gaming organizations).

A serious blow would be dealt the video game industry and to Americans’ right to

free speech if violent video games were banned. Groups like MAVAV have the wrong

outlook on violent video games. They do not need to be taken out of society; they simply

need parents to take responsibility for the entertainment that their child views. Explicit

material cannot harm a young child if the child does not view it and that is the parent’s

responsibility, not the game manufacturer's responsibility or the government’s

responsibility. Video games (including violent ones) can also provide a great tool for

learning and should be open to all and not swept away. As the members of the Video

Games Voters Network say, “Leave my video games alone!”