Levi Hawes

Briggs
Eng. 1010
12/5/11
Parenting and the Government
The ongoing debate about violent video games and our nations children has been a topic of
discussion between many children and their parents over that last few years. With the introduction of
more realistic games depicting more realism in their violence such as Halo or Battlefield 3, parents and
the government have taken an interest in whether or not it should be illegal to sell these games to
minors. Should the government be involved in the process? Being an avid video game player myself and
also having my own fair share of arguments with my own parents, this topic intrigued me greatly. I think
that this type of decision should be placed in the hands of parents, not the government.
In the article, Protect Kids, Not Profiteers, James Steyer introduces a new U.S. Supreme Court
case addressing a 2005 California law to ban the sale of violent or sexually suggestive games such as Call
of Duty or Grand Theft Auto, to minors. Steyers article argues that a law requiring age restriction on
certain video games is a solution that puts parents in charge of what games their children play instead of
the gaming industry protecting its income.
This article shows through research and testing that violent video games effect children. These
games lead to aggressive behavior, anxiety, and desensitization of these violent images. Video games
can also have a positive learning effect when playing the age appropriate genre and ratings. This has
given me an incentive to believe that violent video games effect children in a very negative way.
However, Steyer is arguing that the parents of these children should inform themselves of the content
of these games and make it their responsibility to decide and not the governments which also makes
me think that could be a more effective solution.

In Ken Paulsons article, "How Obscene Is Video Game Violence?" he talks about how the
Supreme Court is trying to decide whether to uphold a California law that bans sales or rentals to minors
of highly violent video games depicting murder, decapitation, etc. It's not the kind of content that most
parents would want their children to be exposed to. But in arguments, the court was concerned about
whether this limit on video game sales violates the First Amendment.
Paulson is saying that the government should not be allowed to restrict the sale of violent video
games to minors. This article made a point to me that it is the responsibility of the parents of these
gamers to decide which games should be played by their children. The Entertainment Software Rating
Board has given standards for each game to inform which age group is appropriate to play certain games
and it is a tool that parents should use when making a decision.
Joan Biskupics article, "Can States Keep Kids from Violent Video Games?" says California state
officials are saying that the law they created, banning the sale of violent games to minors is very
important to protect children. Video game publishers and film makers alike are claiming that if the
Supreme Court sides with California, the law could destroy the creativity in game development and
movie production.
This articles argument is opposite to Paulsons and it says the government should be able have
some influence because of the detrimental effect that violent games can have on childrens behaviors,
feelings, and attitudes. The concern of the restriction of creativity by game developers is a very
important argument. The government doesnt control content in the film industry, why should it here?
This has given me some greater insight about the effect that good parenting can have on kids and their
exposure to video games. There is no need for the government to get involved. If they cant control the
content in movies, they shouldnt be able to have that right in video games.

All of this aside, Sharon Jayson in her article Study the Player, Not the Video Game brings up
an entirely new argument. She says, Video games--especially violent ones--are constantly under
scrutiny from parents concerned about negative effects. Now, research suggests that those worries
should focus more on the player's personality rather than the content of the games." Games dont
change who a player is, the competitive nature of the player brings out aggression, not the content. But
studies show that these games bring out the aggression and thats why there are many mixed opinions.
This article has great examples and ideas on the fact that video games, although some may
depict violence, do not directly impact the way children behave aggressively. Their competitiveness and
desire to win could make them aggressive, giving the Supreme Court more reason to uphold the new
California state law. Jayson includes why some games can be good because of their strategic elements,
promoting critical thinking which has me believing that the government has no reason to interfere with
video game sales and production.
The Supreme Court's decision on Monday June 27, 2011 ending California's quest to ban the sale
of violent video games to minors becomes a very important moment for the gaming industry and ends
the threat to its creative development. From USA TODAY, Joan Bikupics article Ruling Puts Regulation
in Game Designers Control highlights the Supreme Court decision, which provides First Amendment
protection for video games.
Based on the Supreme Courts ruling on the California State law, my opinion has been swayed
drastically. The previous article that was an introduction of the case had given readers some reason to
believe that games have a great effect on children. This article has shown evidence, such as studies
proving that games dont affect children, that has made it clear that making the sale of these games to
minors illegal is unnecessary. Also, many if not all of the current gaming consoles have parental control
which give the parents even more control.

Based on all of the articles I read and researched, Ive learned about the tools available to
parents and my own opinion has not changed on the matter. This research has strengthened my opinion
from the articles claiming that it is the parents job to protect children, not the governments. Although
it would help protect children and shield them from these depictions of violence, I think it is
unconstitutional for the government to take this much control over the matter. The ESRB has released
rating specifications for each game and ages appropriate for play based on the rating. This controversy
should be placed in the hands of the parents who should be responsible enough to read these ratings
and decide for themselves what is or isnt appropriate.