Arrgh! I don't get Justice Talking where I am, and I can't play it on my computer! I so wanted to hear this debate! It is, I believe, Gerard Jones vs. Daphne White. I am familiar with sides of this argument, and have read articles and books by both of these people. I am interested on how each individual will answer their completely opposite point of view.

Anyway, my take on video game violence: I believe it should be completely up to the individual to decide whether or not to let their kids buy certain games. I could say, "I played violent video games all my life and was the least violent person in the world", but I know that not everyone is like me, and someone out there might be influenced by it. Still, I do not believe that we should restrict all kids' access to these games based on just a hunch that a handful of kids may act violently because of them. And we can also agree that any kid who would kill someone because they played a video game already had psychological problems to begin with, so it's absurd to say that a kid may start out normal and turn into a killer after playing a game. Furthermore, on the legal side of the issue, two court cases, American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick and Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, have already ruled against laws that prevent kids from buying violent video games, with a third law being heard in Washington State. The decisions found that: 1) video games are protected speech under the first amendment since they contain storylines, ideas, messages, and sometimes even ideologies, 2) the argument that violent entertainment causes violent behavior is not supported, and there is no evidence anywhere that a video game caused someone to commit a violent act, and 3) kids have First Amendment rights as well, and laws cannot breach their rights in the name of "protecting" them.

Having read both sides in this debate in general, and works by the two individuals involved in general, I tend to agree with Gerard Jones that children do need to be exposed to some violent entertainment to help them deal with the world around them. He says that video games, toys, movies, etc. with violent themes helps children develop a fantasy self that allows them to master and release the rage they feel naturally, but are not allowed to express in the real world. Daphne White's organization, the Lion and Lamb Project, wants to eliminate all forms of violence in children's entertainment, including action figures and toy guns, and create a fairy-tale world (which is acutally a misnomer, if you have ever read the Grimm fairy tales in their original form) of lollipops and sunshine. That is not healthy either; it leaves kids with a false view of reality that, when kids discover is not real, will shatter harshly, and does not provide an outlet for them to channel anger and hostility that they, as human beings, will inevitably feel.

A couple of problems with the program I heard tonight:

1) Mass marketing is the cause of violence in our culture? Since the dawn of time? Wow!

2) Easy access to firearms causes things like Columbine? Um, No.

They obtained and possessed the firearms illegally. No law would have stopped those little monsters. How can I say that? They had Several 20lb propane tanks in the school to use as firebombs, they just didn't get a chance. Easy access to propane?

3) Labels for content? Like the labels on the hunting or fishing videogames at the supermarket? "WARNING-VIOLENCE" Hunting and fishing is not violence. How about the latest media descriptions of Hamas and Al-Qaida as "militias"? Or the fact that some child protection/firewall software selectively filters out some websites based on their political or social views?

I think violence in children comes from the home environment they live in, and not video games. Children usually imitate the behaviour they are exposed to in the family setting. Example, boys who see their fahter beat their mother, tend to grow up exhibiting the same behaviour. Children who are ingnored by their parents usually exhibit angry behaviour to get their parents attention. Studies have shown... young children and teens "learn" their behaviour by imitating the behaviour of their parents. Studies have also shown that children and teens that are ignored by their parents, exhibit agressive behaviour to gain attention. Let us face it, children and teens in the US, don't get the love and attention they deserve from their parents.

If "you" are going to complain about violent video games, then "you" should be complaining about the violent nature of Hollywood, movies, television, and radio. Most of everything we see in the movies has violent content. Also, shows like 20/20, Dateline, 48 Hours, 60 minutes, and the like... spread more "PARANOIA" than anything else. They highlight 1 case in a million... and make you think it could happen to you.

I think most of the violence that kids learn, comes striaght from the home environment they experience. Parents need to help and let their kids find "things", and then the parents should participate in those "things". When kids receive positive attention from the parents, violence is not born.

I am 18 years old and a student at Iowa State University. I have been playing "violent" video games since I was 10 and I have not gone out and punched people or brought a gun into a public square. I am a christian and I believe that violent video games should be regulated like tv media but not banned from children. It is really a parent's call, but in this day and age I think that sheltering our children from things like that aren't going to work either. When a child watches a violent show on tv, is that not the same as playing a violent video game? They watch a hero shoot someone and they can be that hero: is that not the same thing almost? Both have influence on that child. I think that we shouldn't be sheltering, but should be aware of our children's activites and how involved they become in violent video games.

Thank you,

Marcus Upchurch Ames, Iowa

I think that it is ridiculous that people say that Columnbine wa caused because of video games. Video games are FANTASy. Fantasy cannot happen in reality. Fantasy is not reality!! The people that commited Columbine were messed up to begin with. Parents shoudl know whether their children are in control of themselves, and are able to play videogames. In Grand Teft Auto 3, you can drive a car into a wall going insanley fast, and nothing happens. IF your car is in bad enough shape, it will start on fire, you can get out, and as long as you are out of the car, it doesnt mater how far you are from it, and it blows up, it will take soem of your health. People cannot survive explosions liek that in real life. It is fantasy.

Obviously parents shod not let their 7 and 8 year old children play M rated games. Parents should set limits, but not outragous ones. There have been studies that have shown that videogames are a good way for TEENS to relieve their emotions. TEENS. Once you are of a certain age, you cant just pick up a stick and play cowboys and indians. There also have been no PHYSICAL evidence that crimes hae been related to violent video games.

DOES HARRY POTTER TEACH KIDS TO BE WITCHES AD WIZARDS?!!!!!!!! WHY DON'T WE START BURNINGS WITCHES AGAIN

First of all, I find it sad that neither of the participants in the debate had actually played the game Grand Theft Auto and yet felt qualified to discuss it because they had watched it being played. Watching a game is very different from playing a game. If this program were to hold a debate about the affects of violent films and the debaters had never seen Pulp Fiction but felt that they were qualified to discuss it because they had read the script and seen pictures from it, we would dismiss them as uninformed. Whether one feels that games are potentially harmful or that they are harmless, one must play a game to actually understand it.

Secondly, in the study of folklore, there is a concept known as the narrative frame. Basically a narrative frame is a way of alerting an audience as to what kind of behavior is acceptable in what kind of context. For example if someone were to say, "Stop me if you've heard this one..." We are generally led to believe that a joke is coming up and that it is appropriate to listen until the end and then laugh. It would be inappropriate for us to stop and ask questions such as "Why would the bartender let the horse in the bar in the first place?" When we hear, "Once upon a time.." we know a fairy tale is coming. The context tell us what kind of behavior is acceptable.

This concept of a framing behavior in acceptable contexts can be widened. For example, when the lights go out at a theater we know (or at least should know) to stop talking because the movie is about to start. When I walk into my classroom on the first day of class the students automatically stop talking despite the fact that most have never seen me before, because the context of the situation tells them that when the teacher walks in they should behave in a certain way. This applies to videogames in that it seems that there is a context to playing games. When a person sits in from of a tv or computer with a controller or keyboard in front of them the context informs us that a certain kind of behavior is acceptable. That behavior is not acceptable in different contexts.

Lastly, the bill introduced by Joe Bacca was mentioned in teh program. Congressman Joe Baca (D-California) introduced H.R. 4645, The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2002. The bill would penalize those who sell or rent "violent" video games to a minor. Some of their reasons for proposing this are: the video games aren't free speech ruling, the Germany shooting (even though that man was 19 and thus not a minor as well as the fact that there is already a similar law in Germany) and a report that "found" that "violent" videogames cause violence (despite the fact that there other reports that found no link).

The language Baca used in the press release is pure moral panic. "I'm a parent and grandparent, and I've had enough of the violence we're experiencing among our youth," Baca said. "We saw it at Columbine High School, and we saw it last week in Germany." "Do you really want your kids assuming the role of a mass murderer or car jacker while you are away at work?" And referencing the St. Louis decision (which has since been overturned) he says, "The courts have finally decided what every parent already knows - that video games containing ultra violent depictions of murder, rape, and assault have no place in the hands of our children."

The ignorance evident in the St. Louis decision as been discussed elsewhere. However, the ignorance of this proposed law bears discussion. Whether or not children should be allowed access to these games is not the issue I wish to discuss. The issues are whether or not the government should be the one to decide this debate and what is considered "violent" and why.

To the best of my knowledge (and I would be thrilled if anyone can prove me wrong) there is no federal law enforcing movie ratings. The movie ratings board is a self-imposed regulatory body. It is the movie theaters and video renters/sellers who decide who can see a "violent" film and who cannot, not the federal government. If this is true, the videogame industry already has ratings. The industry simply needs to enforce them. Why should the film industry be allowed to self-regulate and the videogame industry should not?

By outlawing the sales of "violent" videogames to minors, the government will nullify these ratings. What is "violent" and who gets to decide? Is Madden 2002 violent? How do we know if they consider that violent or not? According to the proposed law it might be considered violent under the "aggravated assault or battery" limitation. This law opens up the floodgates and makes it very hard for a game development company to make sure that they do not make a game that is considered "too violent." With the industry regulated ratings board there is prior knowledge. The makers and retailers find out that the game is "violent" before it goes to the store, and therefore know what they are getting themselves into. With a law, the makers, and perhaps more importantly, the retailers will not know if a game is "too violent" until they get busted by some undercover police officer with nothing better to do.

This issue of violence gets to a deeper issue. In all likelihood, Madden 2002 would not be considered "too violent." Why? Because it is "just football." In American society (and probably in much of western society as well, although I am no expert on international culture), sports are naturalized. We consider them harmless. Even more than that, we encourage children to participate in them saying that they will be morale builders and the like. However, let us stop a moment and think about what actually happens during a contact, "masculine" sport like football (both kinds), basketball or hockey. How do players hype themselves up for the game, how to they refer to their opponents? "Let's kill 'em! Let's rip their heads off! Let's destroy them!"

So here we have an activity that involves actual real violence, hitting one another and face to face trash talking and yet we do not seem concerned that this will lead to other acts of violence? But we have these mediated, virtual enactments and we are concerned? Real violence does not cause more violence, but virtual violence does? The worst injury I have ever heard of at a LAN party is carpal tunnel! How often do fights break out at LAN parties? How often do they break out at sporting events? Remind me again which one of these causes violence?

This is not to suggest that I think we should outlaw sports. Not at all. It is to show a point. Sports are considered part of our society. They have been since ancient times. So the thought that these may cause violence does not even occur to most people. However, these damn kids and their videogames. Now that is another story. Videogames are a new medium and they are a new entrant into our culture. Hence the moral panic surrounding them. Remember what rap was supposed to do to our kids? Remember what heavy metal was supposed to do? Remember rock and roll? There have been moral panics about technology dating all the way back to the popularization of the printing press. What is going on here is nothing different and as such we should try to see through the moralistic, "what about the children!?!" hype and see that the real issues here are not "should children be prevented from buying violent videogames?" but "Do we need a law to prevent children from buy violent videogames?" "Who decides what 'violent' is?" and "Why is that considered violent when there are so many other things in society that aren't?"

This is an essay about the misguided blame placed on the video game industry, which I wrote for English class about a year ago.

Violence has been a part of mankind since the days when animals were killed every day for food. It has always had an effect on man. A society is impossible to have without violence. It is no different today, except that much of the violence that we experience is virtual.

Some people believe that violent video games are evil because they teach violence. However, they teach virtual violence, which does not involve hurting anyone. In previous societies, it was customary to sacrifice people, or kill people for public enjoyment.

"People shouldn't play computer games because it makes people violent. The Romans played computer games which made them violent. That is why they liked seeing people spill blood in the arenas. The crusades began when some people were playing Doom death matches and a fight broke out and all hell broke loose. World War 1 was caused by people playing computer games and becoming violent. If Hitler hadn't spent his childhood learning violence through video games, we wouldn't have had World War 2. The Muslims want to have a jihad against the Christians because they have been playing too much Quake. India and Pakistan are at war over the Quake vs. Unreal controversy."

This is an anonymous quote I found online, which states perfectly the reason that computer games are not the reason for our violent society.

In ancient Rome it was common for slaves to be violently killed in a public amusement. We now commend the Romans for being masters of architecture, and sciences. The question is, would the Romans have been so powerful if they had not incorporated violence into their society? However, this vital violence was not learned from child?s games, but war. The Romans were constantly at war.

Every time someone joins the military, the chance of this new recruit killing somebody increases by thousands of percent. The only difference from murder is that the soldiers are killing a ?bad person.? However, in video games the only people who are being killed are fake people. The only possibility of the player hurting himself, or someone else while playing a video game, is the gamer twisting his wrist while using a mouse.

Since playing video games is not very dangerous, then sports like football, which many parents would love for their children to play, is much more violent than these computer games. Yet football isn?t considered to be extremely violent, because it is only people jumping on top of each other and ramming heads. It is considered a cheerful, suitable game for young children to play. In fact, football is even school-sponsored, but many schools will not allow any games that might encourage violent activities on their campuses. You never hear about someone getting injured by playing a computer, yet it seems as though every day you hear about another sports star getting a concussion, or getting seriously injured.

At most schools it is not the students who spend their time killing virtual bots, or their time at LAN, Local Area Network, parties, who start fights, but the sports stars, and jocks of the school. While still on the subject of sports, it must be brought up that sports are good for you because they release aggression. Computer games release an equal amount of aggression, but they do not harm anyone.

It is also nonsense to say that computer games are the only reason a student will ?shoot-up? a school. There is violence all around the society we live in. Books are sometimes more violent than most violent games. In a book the author can more accurately describe a war, or violent scene, because the reader uses his past experiences to create a visual image. The news is extremely violent. However, the news is not considered to be the reason children are more violent than ever. In fact, a good student should watch the news. If students were not shown footage of the September 11 tragedy during school hours, the school might be declared ?unpatriotic,? but there was much more violence in the five minutes of video clips than in 45 minutes of playing a game such as Quake III. In History class, it is required to study World War II, where 6 million Jewish people were killed, yet we are certain this is not where the violence in our younger generations is coming from. Even in English, students have to read violent stories, like All Quiet on the Western Front, The Red Badge of Courage, or Richard II.

Is it just easier to blame all the violence on a single industry, like the video game industry? Perhaps the video game industry was chosen because most workers in this industry are young and have very little power. The truth is, there is very little or no evidence showing that video games produce more violence than many other common activities.

The solution to this problem is not more control over video games, but better control by parents. My parents always enforced strict rules about computer games in my house, but they understood that I enjoyed them so they did allow me to purcahse some. Their guidance allowed me to set my own limits for games I play. Some argue that parents are not always around, yes its true, but you control games, one unplug the power cord to the console, many have entire cords that can come off an be hidden so the game console can't come on. Also the parents can always use special gaming timers that have been released that allow parents to control when kids are on. We don't need law makers to control every aspect of our lives, thats what parents are for.

I do not personally understand the allure of violent video games (or video games in general, really). However, we don't need the government stepping in and taking over yet another role that parents are supposed to fill. It is a parent's responsibility to monitor their children's exposure to and use of all media; and to be aware of their child's mental and emotional state. If they don't want that responsibility, maybe they should not have had the kids.

I also find it interesting that most of these proposals are made by conservatives and republicans -- the very people who are always yelling about government being too big.

I was playing Grand theft auto and my 2.5 year old was behind me when I was distracted and he saw me pull somebody out of a car and beat him up. 1.5 year later we were talking about cars and he wants a sports red car and I told him we could not have one because they were too expensive...his reply...dad why don't you get that guy out of his car, beat him up and you can then drive his car...

To my defense, I destroyed the game the day after my son saw me 1.5 years ago because my wife found out and I agreed to grow up and quit playing computer games that were based on violence. I fact we went the other way, we don't even watch television anymore.

I also realize that exposure to virtual violence did affect me in more ways than one.

kindly

Julio

I spent a year at gamespot and watched the quake generation of games go through the roof and I have to say that violence in games actually hurt the quality of game DESIGN! if you look at the variety of gaming styles that happened in the "Asteroids" games, the designers tried a lot of different styles of play, many of which were incredibly "Tame" in the context of the shooters that followed.

The shooters have really dragged down the industry; their success have really sucked the wind out of the variety of games being made, and the capital available to nonviolent games, especially at arcades (which are pretty much ghost towns after the proliferation of home games).

On the bright side, in the PC genre, a lot of money has been made by the games that have no violent content whatsoever and are more construction sims like "Civ City" and "Myst"; my point being, if you take a "Lassiez Faire" approach to the issue, the choices people make would indicate that there are a lot of people who, given no control from the outside world, would still choose construction based games, and a lot of older gamers who used to play violent games, if they play at all, are buying games that are less adrenalin charged and more construction/open ended or social/team based games, like the multiplayer "virtual worlds" including Everquest that alongside with the violence, have a strong social and team based element.

In other words, violence appeals to kids because they ARE kids, and kids will inevitably grow up, with or without government supervision.

I forgot to make my pint earlier...the point of what I say is: as a parent I have a choice to not allow violence to be witnessed in my home, and that includes television, video games, computer games and ourselves as well. Whether the government wants to intervene or not is irrelevant to me at this point.

My wife and I provide a violence free home and spiritual education to our children, and we hope they will do the same when they grow up if they decide to have a family, or not

First, video games have rating systems just like movies. Therefore, they can be regulated just like movies. Second, a video game is less likely to cause a child to act than a movie is. Third, violence is everywhere. Why are people so concenred with it on video games? Sports, TV, movies, radio, and books all use it to gain our attention.