Don
Shifrin, MD, FAAP
In
June’s United States’ Supreme Court decision in Brown (Governor of California)
versus the Entertainment Merchants Association, the “nine” (actually 7-2) voted
to reject a California law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent M-rated
games to minors under 18. (According to
the Entertainment Software Rating Board, “Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for those ages 17
and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and
gore, sexual content and/or strong language.”)
Apparently,
there was a “lack of credible evidence” that created enough of a “reasonable
doubt” to convince a majority of the justices that viewing or playing violent
video games would not influence young minds and imaginations in morally
perverse ways. Therefore, First Amendment freedoms could not be marginalized. Case
closed.
True,
the California law was vague and would have been difficult to enforce. But childhood
advocates and most (unfortunately not all) researchers agree that viewing
violence can influence behaviors, desensitize emotions to real life aggression,
and produce a perspective that the real world has a violent landscape.
But
here’s the thing -- the court established decades ago that laws could protect
children from sex and pornography in the media. Albeit, apparently just not
violent pornography against prostitutes as in Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City
Stories.
In all honesty, a large majority of programming in cable, movies, games, and
the Internet breach those laws daily.
The
gaming industry, as well as TV, movies, and the music industry, proudly defend
their individual rating systems, and device features, as evidence that parents
can control exactly what their kids view or play.
In
the “life imitating art” lesson here, I participated in an Israeli Army
training session 3 years ago.At an Army training center, we were
given M-16 rifles with laser sights and then watched a video on a room-sized
screen where various terrorist scenarios were played as live situations.
Shooters (of laser bullets) were graded on reaction time, terrorists killed or
wounded, and civilians spared, or not. This video exercise has been in place
for years to train soldiers to instinctively recognize, react, and respond
appropriately with lethal force. I could say, in all honesty, that I was
certainly desensitized to real life violence after multiple encounters. And
that was after only 30 minutes of “playing time.” The true point of the
exercise? Get used to assessing
and shooting quickly and efficiently. The exercise is about desensitization.
Appropriate for people going to war, not to school.
Training
soldiers to react, shoot, and kill produces shooters like Michael Carneal. At
Heath High School in Paducah Kentucky on Dec. 1, 1997, Michael, an expert gamer
who had never fired a real gun, took a pistol to school, pulled it out in the
hall and fired eight shots in succession. All eight hit students; five were
head shots. (Something even law officers cannot accomplish most of the time.)
He was heard to reply after he dropped the gun, “Kill me please; I can’t
believe I did that.”
In
1999, the parents of three victims filed a $33 million lawsuit against two
Internet pornography sites, several computer game companies, and makers and
distributors of the films Natural Born Killers and The Basketball Diaries. They
claimed that media violence inspired Michael and should be held responsible.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was “simply too far a leap from
shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom.” Both the parents’ attorney and the 79th
U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, went on record as stating that Michael’s
proficient marksmanship was due to practice in violent video games.
No
small wonder Lt. David Grossman, author of the book “Stop Teaching Our Kids to
Kill,” calls these games “murder simulators”. We should not be surprised then when kids and teens enter
emergency rooms after being shot with real bullets and they exclaim, “I didn’t
know it could hurt this much.” Certainly it is a fact that pain or negative
consequences of violent acts are rarely seen on screens. Research from the landmark three-year
National Cable Television Violence Study in 1997 demonstrated that conclusively.
For
every Cheryl Olson (former Harvard psychiatry professor), who maintains there
is no “credible evidence” that violent games cause children psychological or
neurological harm, or make them more aggressive and likely to harm others, the
evidence is slowly but surely going to cast “a reasonable doubt” on their
assumptions. Many think ample
evidence exists to support that connection already.
So
far, we do not know which children are most at risk or when; what kind of
content in these games could cause psychological changes; and how much exposure
it takes.
We
do know, based on sex and pornography, that books are different from videos. So comparing violence in a book to a
video, done by one Supreme Court justice, seems simplistic at best. And, to lump in that consideration that
violent games have benefits, causes most researchers to reach for their
antacids.
With
this affirmation of free speech, the two dissenting justices did reaffirm the
rightful job of mothers, fathers, grandparents, and caregivers to filter,
monitor, and regulate children’s exposure. You and I both know that with
devices galore and connections aplenty, that is now a seemingly endless task.
Note
here that the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rated around 1,600
games in 2010. That job was done
by humans watching a DVD submitted by the game’s publisher, which includes the
worst violence, language, and sexual scenes. Evidently, they do not “play” the game. But at least humans are involved -- for
now. The ESRB will now have computers rate online console
games for Xbox, Wii, and PlayStation based on extensive ‘questionnaires’
submitted by the publishers.
Humans will not see or review the online games until it is on the Web. As for the increasing number of apps,
social, and mobile games, Apple and Zynga/Facebook have taken no action
concerning any ratings system to date.
Ever
the pragmatist, Michael Gallagher, President and CEO of the Entertainment
Software Association, called the Brown decision, “An overwhelming endorsement
of the first amendment: the right to free expression.” Additionally, “It’s also a great victory
for parents and the rights of parents.”
Really
Mr. Gallagher? I am sure if you
put your ear to the rail you will hear a different kind of rhetoric from
parents and the public.
The
great Harlem Baptist preacher Calvin Butts once declared, “Violence is an
American tradition.” It’s also big
business now left virtually unfettered. And, at least in the court of this pediatrician’s opinion,
money may not be all it is generating.
