Back to News & Commentary

Worst Facts Make Worst Law with Violent Video Games

Gabe Rottman,
Legislative Counsel,
勛圖眻畦 Washington Legislative Office
Share This Page
December 20, 2012

Its perfectly understandable that after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., everyone is casting about for an answer to a singular question: why?

As , we shouldnt be surprised that several members of Congress have settled on media violence as the possible culprit, noting that Adam Lanza may have obsessively played Starcraft and Call of Duty. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is reportedly circulating mandating a study on youth exposure to violent video games.

We shouldnt move too quickly because of lingering trauma from last week. These are the worst facts, and they will make the worst law if we let them.

Media violence has long been a target of lawmakers seeking a cheap and politically cost-free way to address crimes committed by young people. Calls for studies, hearings, self-censorship, or even actual censorship are easy. Most folks arent going to go out of their way to defend stuff that panders to the baser instincts, and lawmakers look like theyre doing something proactive to get at the problem. This is the story thats played itself out now for decades, all the way back to the 1920s, when movie censorship sought to protect kids by limiting depictions of, for instance, any inference of sex perversion and miscegenation.

The problem is, without a mind-reading device, its virtually impossible to identify a causal link between exposure to media and any kind of action in the real world. This is doubly true when youre talking about childrens exposure to violence.

First, lots of people play video games. Simply pointing out that some people who play video games commit violent acts is like saying that because people in prison like television, television must cause crime.

Second, it is certainly possible that people who are predisposed to violent conduct gravitate toward video games that depict violent acts. This is a chicken-and-egg question. As the Supreme Court pointed out (in a overturning a California state law criminalizing sales of violent video games to minors), even the psychologists who claim a causal link are only able to come up with weak evidence of correlation. And correlation is not causation. Note that this problem also applies to the slightly more complex question of whether violent video games will make already violent individuals more violent.

The chicken-and-egg question is one of effectiveness; that is, it suggests that even if you prevent kids from playing violent video games, you wont prevent violence. Thats probably true. But its also worth reflecting on why it might actually be unwise to let anyone other than parents make decisions about childrens access to depictions of violence.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in the violent video games case, and he made much of the fact that video games arent uniquely violent. In doing so, he cited Grimms Fairy Tales (which are simply brutal if youve ever read the originals), the Odyssey, Dantes Inferno, and (notably) Lord of the Flies.

His main point here was that theres no longstanding tradition of restricting childrens access to depictions of violence; had there been one, it might have bolstered Californias argument that the government has an interest in regulating access. That is certainly true, but theres a larger point that Justice Scalia did not expressly make: sometimes depictions of violence in media consumed by children have cultural and social worth. Lord of the Flies, for example, a book graphically depicting child-murder by children, is required reading in many schools.

Now, why does that matter? Because if its true that depictions of violence have cultural, literary or social merit independent of the violence, the government shouldnt be in the business of policing access, be it by children or adults. If the depiction of violence triggers the power to censor, government can then use that violence as a proxy to censor the underlying message. Lord of the Flies is a particularly good example in that the graphic violence serves a broader allegory about, among other things, human political and social organization (things that a government may very well want to censor).

The bottom line is that both the functional problem (its not clear that censorship would do any good) and the fact that violent video games might actually have some social value suggest strongly that parents are the ones who need to supervise their childrens consumption of media. We should not let the understandable reaction to the horrific events in Newtown grease the skids toward government restrictions.

Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page