Let's be a little reasonable here, people!

Hello again blog!

I've missed you! I'm so sorry I haven't posted in two months. As I may have already said in previous posts, I am currently taking a reporting class. Needless to say, I have kind of overdosed on writing because of it. This blog is the only pleasurable form of writing I am able to partake in, and I'm glad I finally have time to post again. Since the semester is almost over, expect a steady stream of video-game goodness in the future!

Today I'm going to talk about something that has been bugging me for the past couple of weeks since the news broke. As of Nov. 3, the Supreme Court has been torn over a law that would forbid the sale of violent video games to children (specifically those under age 18). Those who violate the law could be fined $1,000 per game.

The case, Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Assn, has been very controversial. If California upheld the law, it would certainly break new ground and anger a lot of 1st amendment activists. The link I included is a pretty neutral article, which seems to be difficult to come by regarding this law. Most people have reacted pretty negatively toward it, whether it be video game journalists or freedom-of-speech advocates.

I've researched the details of the law pretty extensively to make sure I'm not missing anything. It seems that everything we need to know is out there - with one exception. As with most laws, there is confusion and problems with clarity. Some justices are worried that the state's definition of a banned game is vague and would not be clear to game makers or retailers. What exactly is the definition of a violent game? Does this include everything from ribbing human heads off to blood and guts to animal fighting?

Now that you have the basic background, here is my opinion. I completely support the law. Yep, I said it! Honestly, though, I feel like I am the only one. So many gamers and professionals in the industry have been ripping the law apart without really looking at the overall benefits and the effectiveness of similar laws in other entertainment fields.

I want to make it clear that I do not support the law because of the whole correlation equals causation debate. If you don't know what this means let me give you an example. A teenager murders his classmate and prosecutors say his addiction to a violent video game made him do it. Those who believe correlation equals causation is complete crap do not necessarily think the game had anything to do with it. It is a possibility, but you cannot automatically assume that the game affected his behavior.

I support the law, because I will one day be a parent. Although I consider myself socially liberal, I do still believe in some traditional values that I want to uphold when I have children of my own. I'm sorry, but an 8-year-old child should not be playing the current Mortal Kombat games with such accurate and gruesome graphics.

I don't know why no one has brought up movies in this whole debate. I see no difference between this law and movie ratings! You can get into a R-rated movie if you are accompanied by a parent. In a similar fashion, a parent should be able to buy their child a M-rated video game if they see fit, but the child should not be able to purchase it on their own accord. My dad researched video games before he let me play them, and he's the reason I'm a gamer. I don't feel as though I ever missed out. Plus, I could just watch him play more graphic games, such as Resident Evil.

We need to remember that kids are still kids. I was not allowed to watch Saving Private Ryan when I was little, and I certainly would not have been allowed to play Grand Theft Auto until my parents thought I was mature enough.

Now that I've made my case as a future parent, I also want to make my case as a future public relations professional. Being a PR major, I am constantly cajouled and prodded at. Journalists accuse me of being a press whore and everyone else automatically assumes my profession is unethical. This case really hits home on a personal level, because believe it or not - ethics are important to me. Upholding this law would make retailers and developers more accountable, as well as the individuals who are promoting the product.

I saw a situation related to this topic happen at GameStop the other day and thought it was a really good thing. While I was waiting in line to purchase a game, a parent was being cashed out in front of me. Apparently, the individual was about to buy a M-rated game for their young child (I'm guessing he was about 10 years old). The sales associate pointed it out and suggested the parent purchase something else. The customer did seem a bit annoyed, but they still bought something anyway. The employee may have taken a chance and could have lost that business, but in the end, she did the right thing.

Take a look at this video. I think it makes some good points. Although there is a greater abundance of violent games out there than in the past, it doesn't mean children are overall more violent in society today. It is all about moderation, and this law can help parents control that.



Sorry about such a long rant, but I just feel so passionate about this topic. People anger me with their ignorance and do not think about the topic rationally. You can agree or disagree, but let me know on the poll to the right!

Until we meet again blog!

Love,
The Girl Informer

(Images from Google.com)