Introduction
In the modern era, there has been a burgeoning apprehension regarding the influence of violent video games on the younger generation. It is widely held that exposure to such games may contribute to a surge in belligerent conduct and even acts of aggression among juveniles. Consequently, there have been fervent pleas for governmental intervention to impose limitations on the consumption of violent video games by minors. Nonetheless, this essay contends that the government should not possess the prerogative to proscribe violent video games. The forthcoming discourse shall expound upon the opposing viewpoint, followed by arguments explaining why the government should not wield the power to regulate children’s access to violent video games.
The Counterargument
The rebuttal to the notion that the government lacks the authority to prohibit violent video games is rooted in the evidence that exposure to such games has been correlated with heightened aggression and violent conduct in minors. Numerous scholarly inquiries have posited that engaging in violent video games can desensitize persons to real-life violence and amplify aggressive thoughts, emotions, and actions (Ferguson et al. 1425-1426).
Several studies published over the years discovered a positive association between exposure to violent video games and escalating physical aggression over time (Ferguson et al. 1425-1426). Moreover, a correlation was discovered that adolescents who admitted to playing violent video games were more inclined to partake in aggressive behaviors. These findings have prompted many to advocate for government intervention to shield young individuals from the potential detrimental effects of violent video games.
Reason #1
One rationale for the government being deprived of the authority to proscribe violent video games is that it encroaches upon the freedom of expression. Video games represent a mode of artistic creativity, and akin to other forms of communication, they are shielded by the initial provision of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that video games fall within the realm of safeguarded expression, and any endeavor by the government to limit access to them would transgress the First Amendment.
In the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association in 2011, the Supreme Court determined that the California statute banning the distribution of violent video games to minors transgressed the First Amendment (Ferguson et al. 1430-1431). The court maintained that video games, similar to other forms of communication, are safeguarded by the First Amendment and that the government lacks the authority to control their content predicated on potential harm.
Reason #2
The government should not be granted the authority to prohibit violent video games due to the lack of compelling evidence to substantiate the assertion that they directly induce violent conduct. Although specific studies have uncovered an association between engaging in violent video games and heightened aggression, it is crucial to recognize that correlation does not denote causation (Dowsett and Jackson 22-23). Numerous other elements contribute to aggressive behavior, such as familial surroundings, peer pressure, and psychological well-being.
Indeed, a 2017 research published in the Royal Society Open Science journal discovered no substantiation to uphold the notion that violent video games precipitate real-world violence. The research concluded that the connection between violent video games and aggressive conduct is feeble and that other factors exert a more substantial influence in determining violent behavior (Dowsett and Jackson 23-24).
Reason #3
The principle of parental responsibility limits the government’s role in regulating the availability of violent video games. The parents are in the best position to understand their child’s maturity level and what is suitable for them (Halbrook et al. 1097-1098). They are also best equipped to set boundaries and rules regarding their children’s exposure to violent video games. In addition, many video game consoles and platforms offer parental controls that allow parents to restrict their children’s access to certain content, providing them with the tools to monitor and manage their children’s video game consumption.
Rather than relying on the government to intervene, parents should actively supervise and guide their children’s video game consumption. This includes having open discussions with their children about the potential impact of violent content and teaching them how to make responsible choices regarding video games (Halbrook et al. 1098-1099). By assuming this proactive role, parents can guarantee that their children are engaging with video games in a way that aligns with their family’s values and helps promote their well-being.
Conclusion
In summation, although there is worry concerning the impact of violent video games on youths, it is not within the purview of the government to prohibit them. Such an action would encroach upon freedom of expression, and no adequate substantiation exists to validate the assertion that they are directly linked to aggressive conduct among the young population. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of parents to supervise and regulate their children’s media consumption. Rather than depending on governmental interference, we should concentrate on educating parents and children about the potential ramifications of violent video games and promoting judicious media consumption.
Works Cited
Dowsett, Andre, and Mervyn Jackson. “The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 99,2019, pp. 22-27.
Ferguson, Christopher J., Allen Copenhaver, and Patrick Markey. “Reexamining the findings of the American Psychological Association’s 2015 task force on violent media: A meta-analysis.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 15, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1423-1443.
Halbrook, Yemaya J., Aisling T. O’Donnell, and Rachel M. Msetfi. “When and how video games can be good: A review of the positive effects of video games on well-being.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 14, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1096-1104.