There has been some controversy surrounding a request to have the Governor sign a letter in support of overturning a law that was passed 5 years ago in California. The law restricted the sale of violent video/computer games to children. A judge ruled it unconstitutional, based on rights of free speech, and now the case is headed to the U S Supreme Court.
Free speech rights end where safety is at stake. Attorney General Shurtleff says there is no evidence of danger with regard to violent video games but I disagree. I can’t point to a study, just my own experience as a mom.
I feel that violence is as damaging as pornography. American standards for sexual content on movies is much more strict than standards for violence. I believe that both have similar effects on our brains.
Speaking on behalf of the Eagle Forum, Andy Schlafly said, "Some children who are not mature enough to handle it may get addicted to the games and then go on a killing rampage." This assertion seems extreme. What is clear to me, however, is that as children (and adults too) become desensitized to the shock of the violence, it affects their respect for human life and attitudes regarding human suffering.
I have watched my children grow up and I realize that their play is usually combative—shoot ‘em up or cops and robbers— but the increasingly realistic graphics in video games is sensational and I am convinced they affect the way we think. Children are particularly susceptible.
Voters should be able to establish community standards of decency, and violence is a matter of decency. I am in favor of upholding the law that California passed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The following comment came to me in an email. The writer gave permission to post his perspective as a comment here.
J. says: I can appreciate your concern as a mom for the welfare of children in the state, but I have to disagree on the legislative opinion. While it is important to protect our kids from this type of media, that really is the role of a parent/guardian and not the role of the government. The free market has already put forth a very effective ratings system that enables parents to be informed about media content. The ratings system used by the video game industry is much more comprehensive than anything used by the music or film industry. Also, statistics just don't back up the opinion that violent games are causing any increase in real world violence either. While the realistic nature of video games has improved over the years and countless numbers of M-rated (17+) games have been released, the actual number of juvenile violent criminal acts has decreased dramatically.
The legislature's role is not to be the fill-in parent for every possible thing where parents come up lacking. AG Shurtleff points out many possible unintended consequences of codifying video games as legitimate causes of real life violence by enacting a law such as the California law. While it is important to protect our children, as a legislator, you would have to be very careful not to overstep the bounds of the role you would have. I'm all in favor of giving parents the tools to do their job, but the government should not try and do their job for them.
If the law came down as an executive decision, we could clearly complain about government usurping the authority or responsibility of parents. In this case, however, the law was passed by a citizens’ initiative. The majority of voters called for the law. Do you think that should make a difference?
My understanding is that the legal challenge to this law is based on the Right of Free Speech, the same as is used to challenge laws regarding pornography or protest. The Bill of Rights was meant to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. An example of that would be protection of the marches for civil rights in the 1960’s. I don’t believe that this law is an example of tyranny of the majority, rather the majority is drawing a line or setting its standard of decency.
So the question about this particular case is: Should the Utah Governor join the call to overturn the will of the majority of California voters? My answer is “No.”
Taking it to the hypothetical, Should we as a Utah legislature propose and pass this sort of law here? That is where the debate and the issues that you and I brought up come into play. You asked for my opinion and what I gave was my “gut response”. But I am willing to hear opposing views and they may bend my resolve. Thanks for bringing up some great points. It is possible this debate will come up in some future session of our own legislature.
Follow up from J.: I understand your response was a first reaction to the question and I don't think this is a very simple issue to handle. My big objection to the law is it's targeting specifically one entertainment industry (video games) while ignoring the others (film, music). While the majority of voters in California may have called for the law, that doesn't necessarily make it a constitutional law. Another recent example in California shows that, with Proposition 8. While I have my own opinions on Proposition 8, the fact is that a Federal court overturned it as unconstitutional. The final outcome of that issue has yet to be decided, but that, along with this video game law, doesn't exactly give me any confidence in the majority of California voters being able to enact laws that end up being constitutional in nature. I'll reiterate that I am fully in support of protecting children from this type of media. My biggest concern is unintended consequences that come from enacting this law. I feel that the law, as written by California, is a bad law. I think it could be redone to prevent a lot of the consequences that spurred our AG to file his brief against it.
Post a Comment